GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000

The GeForce GTX 950A and Quadro K5000 represent two distinct NVIDIA product philosophies from different eras, and the benchmark data shows a clear split: the Quadro K5000 posts a 10% higher Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,418 versus the GTX 950A's 10,273, yet the GTX 950A holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 48th versus the Quadro's 46th. The GTX 950A, built on the newer Maxwell architecture, delivers a more modern feature set in a compact MXM module, while the Quadro K5000, a Kepler-generation workstation card, offers substantially more memory bandwidth and raw shading throughput. The data indicates these are not direct competitors but rather solutions for different deployment scenarios, with the Quadro K5000's 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus providing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, more than five times the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s over a 128-bit DDR3 interface.

The Verdict

The benchmark results show the Quadro K5000 as the clear performance leader in raw compute, with its OpenCL score of 11,418 sitting 10% above the GTX 950A's 10,273. This advantage is consistent with the hardware specifications: the Quadro packs 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the GTX 950A's 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro's FP32 throughput of 2.169 TFLOPS further reinforces this gap, representing roughly 51% more compute capacity than the GTX 950A's 1,438.7 GFLOPS. For workloads that depend heavily on memory bandwidth, such as large dataset manipulation or high-resolution texture streaming, the Quadro K5000's 172.8 GB/s is transformative compared to the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s.

However, the GTX 950A is not without its merits. Its 75 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained environments, whereas the Quadro K5000 demands 122 W and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GTX 950A also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5000 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 950A's MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs suggest it was designed for mobile or embedded systems, while the Quadro K5000's dual-slot form factor, dual DVI, and dual DisplayPort 1.2 outputs target fixed workstation setups. The production status of both is end-of-life, but the GTX 950A's 2015 release date makes it the more modern part.

For users prioritizing maximum compute performance and memory capacity in a traditional desktop workstation, the Quadro K5000 is the data-backed choice. For those needing a low-power, compact GPU with newer API support in a portable form factor, the GTX 950A is the only viable option. The Quadro K5000 also carries a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, reflecting its professional positioning.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418, which is 10% higher than the GeForce GTX 950A's 10,273 in the geekbench_opencl test.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K5000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.03 GB/s bandwidth, a 5.4x difference in raw bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 950A has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, while the Quadro K5000 has a 122 W TDP, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4 and OpenGL 4.6, while the Quadro K5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and OpenGL 4.6. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How do their physical form factors differ?

A: The GTX 950A is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0) and portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the Quadro K5000 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, using PCIe 2.0 x16.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro K5000's GK104 chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GTX 950A's GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce GTX 950A is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K5000 employs the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. The transistor density is nearly identical, 12.6M per mm² for the GTX 950A versus 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro K5000, but the physical scale differs dramatically: the GK104 die measures 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, while the GM107 is just 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors. This makes the Quadro's chip nearly twice as large, which directly enables its higher core counts.

The Maxwell architecture in the GTX 950A brings a more efficient scheduling design, which is reflected in its higher clock speeds: 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, compared to the Quadro K5000's fixed 706 MHz across both base and boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Quadro's Kepler architecture compensates with sheer scale, 2.4x the shading units, 3.2x the TMUs, and 2x the ROPs. The GTX 950A's memory runs at 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) in DDR3, while the Quadro K5000's GDDR5 operates at 1,350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), providing the bandwidth advantage noted earlier.

Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, as neither architecture included such hardware. The GTX 950A supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the Quadro K5000's Vulkan 1.2.175, though both cap at DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 950A's Maxwell generation (GeForce 900A) is the successor to the GeForce 800A, while the Quadro K5000's Kepler generation succeeds Quadro Fermi and was later succeeded by Quadro Maxwell.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal clear divergences across nearly every measurable parameter. The GTX 950A's base clock of 993 MHz and boost of 1,124 MHz contrast with the Quadro K5000's flat 706 MHz. Memory configuration shows the Quadro's 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus versus the GTX 950A's 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s.

Compute resources scale accordingly: 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the Quadro K5000, compared to 640 shaders, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the GTX 950A. Pixel rate and texture rate follow suit, the Quadro achieves 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s, while the GTX 950A manages 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.169 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950A.

Power and physical specifications are equally divergent: the GTX 950A draws 75 W with no power connector, while the Quadro K5000 requires 122 W, a 6-pin connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The GTX 950A is an MXM-B (3.0) module with portable-device-dependent outputs, whereas the Quadro K5000 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card with 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, measuring 267 mm by 111 mm. The release dates differ by roughly 2.5 years, March 2015 for the GTX 950A versus August 2012 for the Quadro K5000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark, geekbench_opencl, provides a definitive result: the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins with a score of 11,418 against the GeForce GTX 950A's 10,273, a delta of -10% from the perspective of the GTX 950A. This margin is meaningful in real-world terms, it indicates that the Quadro K5000 completes OpenCL workloads approximately 11% faster, which can translate to noticeable reductions in render times or simulation durations.

Contextualizing this result within their respective nearest rival groups adds nuance. The GTX 950A's 10,273 score places it just 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400), while sitting 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) and 2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481). The Quadro K5000's 11,418 score, meanwhile, sits 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645) and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), though these comparisons use the Quadro's average benchmark score of 9,637 rather than its OpenCL result.

The Quadro K5000 also has additional benchmark data from Geekbench Metal (6,324) and Geekbench Vulkan (11,169), while the GTX 950A has only the OpenCL result. This broader benchmark coverage, combined with the Quadro's higher peak score, suggests the workstation card offers more consistent performance across different compute APIs. The GTX 950A's percentile ranking of 48 versus the Quadro's 46, however, indicates that when averaging across all benchmark types, the GTX 950A actually competes favorably in the broader GPU landscape, likely due to its more modern architecture and higher clocks in lighter workloads. The data shows a clear trade-off: the Quadro K5000 dominates in raw compute and memory throughput, while the GTX 950A offers a lower-power, higher-clocked alternative with marginally better standing across the entire GPU market.