GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 880M and Quadro 5000 are both end-of-life workstation and mobile parts, but they target entirely different use cases. The GTX 880M is a high-end mobile GPU from the Kepler generation, while the Quadro 5000 is a professional desktop card from the older Fermi architecture. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Quadro 5000 wins the only shared test outright, yet the GTX 880M carries advantages in raw compute density, memory capacity, and modern feature support. This analysis breaks down where each card excels, what separates their architectures, and who should choose which based strictly on the numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 880M wins on architectural modernity and memory capacity, but loses on the actual benchmark comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 5000 scores 7,289 against the GTX 880M’s 5,622, giving the Quadro a 22.9% lead. That is the only head-to-head benchmark in the data, and it belongs entirely to the Quadro. The GTX 880M does have a Geekbench Metal score of 10,458, but the Quadro 5000 has no Metal result, so no comparison can be drawn there.

Looking at broader performance context, the GTX 880M posts an average benchmark score of 8,040 across all its tests, while the Quadro 5000 averages 7,289. That places the GTX 880M in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the Quadro’s 40th percentile. Despite losing the sole head-to-head, the GTX 880M’s average is actually 10.3% higher than the Quadro’s average, because the Metal score pulls it up. So the win distribution depends on which metric you value: the Quadro dominates the shared OpenCL workload, while the GTX 880M benefits from having an additional benchmark in its favor.

For compute-heavy OpenCL tasks specifically, the Quadro 5000 is the clear winner. For workloads that leverage Metal, the GTX 880M has a measurable advantage, though no direct comparison exists. In terms of memory, the GTX 880M offers 8 GB of GDDR5 versus the Quadro’s 2.5 GB, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Quadro counters with a wider 320-bit memory bus and professional display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort), while the GTX 880M’s outputs are portable-device dependent, making it unsuitable for fixed workstation setups.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip on Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. That process difference is significant: the GTX 880M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro 5000 has 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it just 5.9M per mm². The GTX 880M is more than twice as dense, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing node.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The GTX 880M has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 has only 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is a 4.4x difference in shading units and a 2.9x difference in TMUs, yet the Quadro still wins the OpenCL test, suggesting the Fermi architecture’s compute scheduling or drivers were better optimized for that workload. The GTX 880M’s pixel rate is 31.78 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 11.29 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 127.1 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. The GTX 880M also delivers 3.050 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the Quadro’s 722.3 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture differs as well. The GTX 880M uses a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 5000 uses a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 880M has higher total bandwidth due to faster memory clocks: 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s 2.5 GB capacity is far smaller than the GTX 880M’s 8 GB, but its dual-slot form factor and 1x 6-pin power connector make it a desktop-only part, whereas the GTX 880M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for laptops.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro 5000 wins decisively. The Quadro scores 7,289, the GTX 880M scores 5,622, and the delta is 22.9% in favor of the Quadro. That is a substantial margin, especially given the GTX 880M’s superior hardware specs on paper. The GTX 880M has over 4x the shading units and 4x the FP32 throughput, yet it trails by nearly a quarter in this specific test. This suggests the OpenCL workload in question favors the Fermi architecture’s scheduling or the Quadro’s driver optimizations for compute tasks.

Looking at the rivals list provides context. The GTX 880M’s nearest rival by average score is the NVIDIA Quadro P5000, which scores 8,039, a 0% delta. The GTX 880M’s average of 8,040 is essentially tied with that professional card. Its other rivals include the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053, -0.2%) and GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067, -0.3%), meaning the GTX 880M is within 0.5% of all three. The Quadro 5000’s nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 750, which scores 7,222 against the Quadro’s 7,289, a 0.9% delta in the Quadro’s favor. The Quadro also beats the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203, 1.2% delta) and the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171, 1.6% delta). These rival comparisons show the Quadro 5000 sits slightly above budget desktop cards, while the GTX 880M’s average is competitive with a much newer professional part.

The GTX 880M’s Metal score of 10,458 is its strongest result, but without a Quadro 5000 Metal score, it cannot be used for a head-to-head. The average benchmark score field confirms the overall picture: 8,040 for the GTX 880M versus 7,289 for the Quadro 5000, a 10.3% advantage for the mobile card when averaging all available tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. The GTX 880M uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 5000 uses GF100 on 40 nm. Transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 3,100 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 529 mm². The GTX 880M’s base clock is 954 MHz with a boost of 993 MHz, while the Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 8 GB versus 2.5 GB, bus width is 256-bit versus 320-bit, and bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 1,536 versus 352, TMUs are 128 versus 44, and ROPs are 32 versus 40. Pixel rate is 31.78 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s, texture rate is 127.1 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 3.050 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS. TDP is 122 W versus 152 W. The GTX 880M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the Quadro 5000 is dual-slot with a 1x 6-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. Dimensions differ: the Quadro is 248 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the GTX 880M has no listed dimensions. API support is identical for DirectX (12, 11_0) and OpenGL (4.6), but the GTX 880M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 while the Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support. Release dates are March 2014 for the GTX 880M and February 2011 for the Quadro 5000.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 7,289, beating the GTX 880M’s 5,622 by 22.9%.

Q: Does the GTX 880M have any benchmark where it wins?

A: The GTX 880M has a Geekbench Metal score of 10,458, but the Quadro 5000 has no Metal result, so there is no direct head-to-head comparison. The GTX 880M also has a higher average benchmark score of 8,040 versus the Quadro’s 7,289.

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

A: The GTX 880M’s average score of 8,040 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 (8,039, 0% delta) and within 0.5% of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GTX 650 Ti Boost. The Quadro 5000’s average of 7,289 is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 880M has 8 GB of GDDR5 versus the Quadro 5000’s 2.5 GB, and its bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s, despite the Quadro having a wider 320-bit bus compared to 256-bit.

Q: What are the architectural differences?

A: The GTX 880M uses Kepler on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Quadro 5000 uses Fermi on a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 880M has 1,536 shading units versus 352, and 3.050 TFLOPS FP32 versus 722.3 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GTX 880M supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175. The Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed, though both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload and form factor. For OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro 5000 is the better choice. Its 22.9% lead over the GTX 880M in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the only direct benchmark comparison available, and it wins that outright. The Quadro also offers professional display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) and a dual-slot desktop form factor, making it suitable for fixed workstation setups. Its launch MSRP was 2,499 USD, reflecting its professional positioning.

For general compute throughput and modern API support, the GTX 880M is the stronger card. It has 4.2x the shading units, 4.2x the FP32 throughput, and 2x the memory capacity. Its average benchmark score of 8,040 is 10.3% higher than the Quadro’s 7,289, driven by its Metal performance. It also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro lacks. The GTX 880M’s 28 nm process makes it more power-efficient (122 W TDP versus 152 W) and its MXM form factor targets high-end laptops, not desktops.

If you need a professional desktop card for OpenCL-heavy workloads, the Quadro 5000 is the proven winner in the only head-to-head test. If you need a mobile GPU with more memory, higher raw compute, and newer API support, the GTX 880M is the better fit. The Quadro 5000’s age (released in 2011) and larger 40 nm die make it less efficient, but its benchmark lead in OpenCL is real. The GTX 880M, released in 2014, offers a more modern feature set and better average scores, but it cannot beat the Quadro in the one test they share. Choose based on your specific workload, not on paper specs.