GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 share the same silicon roots, but the benchmark data reveals two very different personalities. The Quadro K5000 takes two of three head-to-head wins, including a massive 39.8% victory in Geekbench Metal, while the GTX 760 counters with an 11% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Both cards sit at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, with average benchmark scores of 9637 and 9458 respectively, placing them within 1.9% of each other overall. The question is whether those differences translate into meaningful use-case advantages.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly by workload type. The Quadro K5000 dominates in Geekbench Metal, scoring 6324 versus the GTX 760’s 4524, a 39.8% margin that is impossible to ignore. This suggests the Quadro holds a substantial advantage in Apple’s Metal API environment, making it the stronger choice for applications that leverage that framework.

The GTX 760 fights back in Geekbench Vulkan, posting 12551 against the Quadro’s 11169, an 11% lead. Vulkan is a low-overhead, cross-platform API used heavily in modern game engines and compute workloads, so this win points toward the GTX 760 being better suited for Vulkan-based applications.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the two are nearly inseparable. The Quadro K5000 edges ahead with 11418 versus 11299, a mere 1.1% difference. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and this near-tie indicates that raw compute throughput is essentially equivalent between the two cards.

The pattern suggests a professional-oriented card that excels in Metal but trails in Vulkan, versus a consumer card that does the reverse. For users locked into Metal-centric workflows, the Quadro is the clear winner. For Vulkan-based gaming or compute, the GTX 760 holds the advantage.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the GK104 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with identical transistor counts of 3,540 million and die sizes of 294 mm². The transistor density of 12.0M / mm² is the same for both. The architectural distinction lies in how NVIDIA configured the silicon.

The Quadro K5000 carries 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 760, by contrast, has fewer execution resources: 1152 shading units and 96 TMUs, though it retains the same 32 ROPs. This means the Quadro has 33% more shading units and 33% more TMUs than the GTX 760, which explains its 39.8% Metal win despite lower clock speeds.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The GTX 760 runs at 980 MHz base and 1032 MHz boost, while the Quadro K5000 is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The GTX 760’s clocks are 38.8% higher at base, which helps it compensate for fewer execution units. Memory clocks also favor the GTX 760: 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), yielding bandwidth of 192.3 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s.

Memory capacity differs substantially. The Quadro K5000 packs 4 GB of GDDR5, double the GTX 760’s 2 GB, though both use a 256-bit bus. The bus interface also differs: the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 760 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, potentially affecting data transfer rates in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.

The Quadro K5000’s power profile is notably lower at 122 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The GTX 760 draws more at 170 W TDP, requiring two 6-pin connectors and a 450 W suggested PSU. Display outputs also diverge: the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 760 provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal result is the headline number. The Quadro K5000’s 6324 score versus the GTX 760’s 4524 represents a 39.8% advantage. This is the largest delta in any test and aligns with the Quadro’s higher shading unit count. Metal tends to scale well with execution resources, and the Quadro’s 1536 shading units versus 1152 give it a structural edge that clock speed cannot overcome.

Geekbench OpenCL is a virtual dead heat. The Quadro K5000 scores 11418, the GTX 760 scores 11299, a 1.1% difference that falls within normal run-to-run variance. This result is curious given the hardware differences: the Quadro has more shading units but lower clocks, while the GTX 760 has fewer units but higher clocks. The near-identical scores suggest OpenCL workloads are balanced between the two configurations.

Geekbench Vulkan flips the script. The GTX 760 wins with 12551 versus 11169, an 11% margin. This is the GTX 760’s best result and its only head-to-head win. Vulkan is known for favoring higher clock speeds and efficient driver overhead, which may explain why the GTX 760’s 1032 MHz boost outperforms the Quadro’s 706 MHz lock.

The win counts reflect this split: the Quadro K5000 wins two tests, the GTX 760 wins one. But the margins matter. The Quadro’s Metal win is nearly four times larger than the GTX 760’s Vulkan win, suggesting the Quadro’s advantages are more pronounced in its winning scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 averages 9637 across all benchmarks, slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760’s 9458, a 1.9% difference.

Q: Does the GTX 760 win in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the GTX 760 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 12551 compared to the Quadro K5000’s 11169, an 11% advantage.

Q: Why does the Quadro K5000 win Geekbench Metal by such a large margin?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 1536 shading units versus the GTX 760’s 1152, a 33% advantage. Its Metal score of 6324 versus 4524 (39.8% higher) reflects that execution resource advantage.

Q: Are the two cards based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GK104 chip, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors and a 294 mm² die size.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 760 has higher bandwidth at 192.3 GB/s, compared to the Quadro K5000’s 172.8 GB/s, due to its faster memory clock of 1502 MHz versus 1350 MHz.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: Both cards sit at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are statistically equivalent in overall performance distribution.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload. The Quadro K5000 is the pick for Metal-based applications, where its 39.8% lead in Geekbench Metal is decisive. Its 4 GB memory capacity also makes it better suited for memory-intensive professional workloads, even though bandwidth is slightly lower.

The GTX 760 is the pick for Vulkan-based scenarios. Its 11% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, combined with higher clock speeds and PCIe 3.0 support, makes it the better option for modern gaming APIs. The GTX 760 also has superior raw throughput metrics in some areas, including pixel rate of 24.77 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s versus 90.37 GTexel/s.

For general compute via OpenCL, the choice is nearly moot. The 1.1% difference in scores means either card performs essentially identically, so other factors like power consumption or display outputs would tip the scale. The Quadro K5000’s 122 W TDP versus the GTX 760’s 170 W is a meaningful efficiency advantage.

The launch MSRP of the Quadro K5000 is 2,499 USD, while the GTX 760 launched at 249 USD. Both are end-of-life products, but the data shows the Quadro’s premium hardware configuration delivered only a marginal average score advantage. The GTX 760’s higher clocks and faster memory made it competitive despite fewer execution units.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 |

|---|---|---|

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce 700 |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1032 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 128 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 24.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 90.37 GTexel/s | 99.07 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.169 TFLOPS | 2.378 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 170 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-08-16 | 2013-06-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 249 USD |