NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M represent two very different interpretations of the Kepler and Maxwell architectures, aimed at professional workstations and mobile gaming, respectively. While both share a 28 nm TSMC process and are end-of-life products, the data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the desktop Quadro holding a decisive advantage in every benchmark recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Quadro K5000 wins both recorded tests, securing a 2-0 victory over the GTX 850M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K5000 scores 11,418 against the GTX 850M's 9,821, a substantial 16.3% lead. This margin is notable, indicating the K5000's larger compute footprint—1536 shading units versus 640—translates directly into raw throughput advantages in general-purpose GPU workloads.

The gap widens significantly in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the K5000 posts 11,169, while the GTX 850M manages only 8,782. That is a 27.2% delta, the largest single-test difference between the two cards. The K5000's advantage in this modern API is striking, suggesting that its Kepler architecture, despite being older, retains robust low-level driver performance. The GTX 850M's Maxwell design, while newer, does not overcome the sheer hardware deficit.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups reinforces the K5000's standing. The K5000's average benchmark score is 9,637, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, scores 9,645, a negligible 0.1% difference. This means the K5000 sits in a tight cluster of mid-range performers, punching at the level of a mobile GTX 960M despite being a professional desktop part.

The GTX 850M's average score is lower at 9,302, though it also lands in the 46th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465, which scores 9,294—just 0.1% behind. The GTX 850M also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M380 by 0.1% and leads the AMD Radeon Vega 8 by 0.9%. While both cards share the same percentile ranking, the 335-point gap in their average scores (9,637 vs 9,302) is consistent with the K5000's head-to-head victories.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins both head-to-head tests. It leads by 16.3% in Geekbench OpenCL (11,418 vs 9,821) and by 27.2% in Geekbench Vulkan (11,169 vs 8,782).

Q: How do these cards compare to their direct rivals?

A: The K5000's average score of 9,637 is nearly identical to the GTX 960M (9,645, -0.1%). The GTX 850M's 9,302 average is essentially tied with the GTX 465 (9,294, +0.1%) and slightly ahead of the Radeon R7 M380 (9,313, -0.1%).

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The K5000 uses the GK104 chip on the Kepler architecture with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 850M uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell, with just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support: the K5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 850M supports the newer Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The K5000 has significantly more. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s. The GTX 850M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding just 32.03 GB/s—a massive disparity.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card, 267 mm long, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W power supply. The GTX 850M is an integrated mobile part (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from NVIDIA. The Quadro K5000 is based on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This chip packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The GTX 850M, in contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. It is also built on TSMC's 28 nm node but houses only 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, achieving a slightly higher density of 12.6 million per mm². The K5000's larger die and nearly double the transistor count give it a substantial hardware foundation.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The K5000 fields 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 850M is halved in most respects: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates into a significant fill-rate gap. The K5000 delivers 22.59 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 90.37 GTexel/s texture rate, versus the GTX 850M's 14.43 GPixel/s and 36.08 GTexel/s. The K5000 also leads in FP32 compute, offering 2.169 TFLOPS compared to the GTX 850M's 1,154.6 GFLOPS.

Clock behavior is another point of divergence. The K5000 runs at a fixed 706 MHz base and boost, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The GTX 850M does not list a base or boost clock in the data, but its memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The K5000's GDDR5 memory, paired with a 256-bit bus, yields 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth—over five times the GTX 850M's 32.03 GB/s from DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. This bandwidth advantage is critical for professional workloads like large texture sets or compute buffers.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every specification that matters. The K5000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 850M is limited to 2 GB of DDR3. The memory bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit, and the resulting bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s. The K5000 also has a higher TDP at 122 W, requiring a 300 W power supply, whereas the GTX 850M draws only 45 W and has no power connector.

Physical design differs by intended platform. The K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with display outputs of 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The GTX 850M is an integrated mobile part with no dimensions listed and outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The bus interface also differs: the K5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 850M uses the newer PCIe 3.0 x16.

Release timing and positioning also separate them. The K5000 launched on 2012-08-16 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The GTX 850M launched later, on 2014-03-11, with no launch MSRP, succeeding GeForce 700M and preceding GeForce 900M. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 850M's Vulkan support is newer (1.4) versus the K5000's 1.2.175. The K5000 has a higher transistor density in absolute terms, but the GTX 850M has a slightly higher density per mm² (12.6M vs 12.0M), reflecting the efficiency gains of Maxwell.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload and form factor. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the outright performance winner, dominating the GTX 850M in both head-to-head benchmarks with leads of 16.3% in OpenCL and 27.2% in Vulkan. Its 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for memory-intensive professional tasks, while its dual-slot desktop design and 2,499 USD launch MSRP position it as a workstation part. The K5000's average score of 9,637 places it on par with the GeForce GTX 960M, indicating its performance remains relevant even against newer mobile parts.

The GeForce GTX 850M, meanwhile, is a mobile-first solution. Its 45 W TDP and IGP form factor make it ideal for laptops where power and space are constrained. While it trails the K5000 significantly, its average score of 9,302 is competitive within its own class, matching the GeForce GTX 465 and slightly exceeding the Radeon R7 M380. The GTX 850M's 2 GB DDR3 memory is a major bottleneck, but for casual gaming or light compute on a portable device, it offers a balanced feature set with newer Vulkan 1.4 support.

In summary, the Quadro K5000 should be the pick for users needing maximum compute throughput, professional display outputs, and robust memory bandwidth in a stationary workstation. The GTX 850M is the logical choice for a mobile platform where the 122 W TDP and dual-slot footprint of the K5000 are simply not viable, and where the efficiency of Maxwell's 28 nm design can be leveraged in a compact, power-sipping package. The benchmark results unequivocally favor the K5000, but the GTX 850M's existence is justified by its entirely different physical and power profile.