NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 950M and the Quadro 5000 occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, and their benchmark data reflects a clear generational divide. The GTX 950M is the clear winner in the recorded head-to-head test, but the Quadro 5000 retains advantages in memory bandwidth and specific professional features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The GeForce GTX 950M scores 9,745 points, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7,289 points. This gives the GTX 950M a 33.7% lead over the Quadro 5000 in this test. That is a substantial margin, not a marginal one. The GTX 950M’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 8,135, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 5000’s average is 7,289, putting it in the 40th percentile. While both sit in the lower-middle range of the overall distribution, the GTX 950M’s lead in the OpenCL test is the dominant factor in their comparative performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context. The GTX 950M sits within 0.7% of cards like the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167), and the GeForce 945M (8,099). Its 8,135 average is essentially tied with these. The Quadro 5000, with its 7,289 average, is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 (7,222) and 1.6% ahead of the GeForce GTX 560 SE (7,171). The data shows the GTX 950M is clustered with a group of mid-range mobile GPUs, while the Quadro 5000 sits with a slightly older or lower-tier group of desktop parts.

The single head-to-head result means the GTX 950M wins one benchmark, and the Quadro 5000 wins zero. The margin of 33.7% is the key figure. It indicates a large computational gap in raw compute tasks like OpenCL, which often scales with shading unit count and clock speed.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, and this explains much of the performance gap. The GeForce GTX 950M uses the GM107 chip, based on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the older Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This is a critical difference. The 28 nm node is more advanced than the 40 nm node, allowing for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this generational shift. The GTX 950M packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The Quadro 5000 has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it a lower density of 5.9 million per mm². The Quadro 5000 is a larger, more complex chip physically, but it is built on an older process. The GTX 950M’s newer process allows it to achieve higher performance with fewer transistors.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The GTX 950M has a base clock of 993 MHz and a boost clock of 1,124 MHz. The Quadro 5000 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. This lack of data is notable, but the memory clock is recorded: the Quadro 5000 runs its memory at 750 MHz, with 3 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 950M runs at 900 MHz, with 1,800 Mbps effective. The memory types are different as well. The GTX 950M uses DDR3, while the Quadro 5000 uses GDDR5.

Core configuration diverges sharply. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 has only 352 shading units but 44 TMUs and 40 ROPs. The GTX 950M has nearly double the shading units, which directly boosts its FP32 compute throughput. The Quadro 5000 has more TMUs and ROPs, which benefits texture fill and pixel output. The measured rates confirm this: the GTX 950M achieves 44.96 GTexel/s texture rate and 17.98 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the Quadro 5000 achieves 22.57 GTexel/s and 11.29 GPixel/s. The GTX 950M leads in both, despite having fewer TMUs and ROPs, due to its higher clocks and newer architecture.

FP32 performance is a major differentiator. The GTX 950M delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 5000 delivers 722.3 GFLOPS. That is roughly double the raw compute power. Neither card has recorded FP16 performance. The GTX 950M’s lead in shading units and clocks directly produces this doubling of FP32 throughput.

The Verdict

The data points to the GeForce GTX 950M as the stronger performer in raw compute benchmarks. Its 33.7% lead in the OpenCL head-to-head test is decisive, and its higher FP32 throughput, shading unit count, and newer architecture support this result. The GTX 950M also has a higher average benchmark score (8,135 vs 7,289) and a slightly higher percentile ranking (42nd vs 40th). For tasks that depend on general compute performance, OpenCL workloads, or raw shader throughput, the GTX 950M is the clear choice based on recorded data.

However, the Quadro 5000 is not without its own strengths, which are not captured in the compute benchmark. It has a much wider memory bus (320 bit vs 128 bit) and significantly higher memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s). It also uses GDDR5 memory, which is faster than DDR3. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, such as certain visualization tasks or large texture streaming, the Quadro 5000’s memory subsystem is superior. Its higher ROP count (40 vs 16) also suggests better fill-rate performance in specific rendering scenarios, though the GTX 950M’s higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s vs 11.29 GPixel/s) contradicts this in practice.

The verdict is split. The GTX 950M wins on compute and modern architecture. The Quadro 5000 wins on memory bandwidth and its professional feature set, which is implied by its Quadro branding, dual-slot design, and display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort). The GTX 950M is a mobile IGP part with no power connectors, while the Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The GTX 950M is far more power-efficient, with a 75 W TDP versus the Quadro 5000’s 152 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The GeForce GTX 950M, with a score of 9,745 versus the Quadro 5000’s 7,289, a 33.7% lead.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a major advantage, offering 120.0 GB/s over a 320 bit bus, while the GTX 950M provides 28.80 GB/s over a 128 bit bus.

Q: What are the architecture generations for each card?

A: The GTX 950M is based on Maxwell (GM107 chip), while the Quadro 5000 is based on Fermi (GF100 chip). The GTX 950M uses a 28 nm process, and the Quadro 5000 uses a 40 nm process.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GeForce GTX 950M has 640 shading units, compared to the Quadro 5000’s 352 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W. The GTX 950M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the Quadro 5000 is dual-slot and requires a 6-pin connector.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The GTX 950M was released on 2015-03-12, while the Quadro 5000 was released earlier on 2011-02-22.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 950M wins in scenarios that leverage its compute power. Its 33.7% OpenCL lead makes it the better choice for OpenCL-based applications, general computing tasks, and any workload that uses the 1,438.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its higher shading unit count (640 vs 352) and texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s vs 22.57 GTexel/s) also favor it for shader-heavy workloads. It is also the only card with a recorded Vulkan score (6,525), giving it a feature advantage in that API. The GTX 950M’s lower TDP (75 W) and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for portable devices, as its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent".

The Quadro 5000 wins in memory-bound scenarios. Its 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth is 4.2 times higher than the GTX 950M’s 28.80 GB/s, and its 320 bit bus is 2.5 times wider. This makes it the better option for applications that stream large textures or datasets, such as professional visualization or CAD. Its 40 ROPs are also more than double the GTX 950M’s 16, though its measured pixel rate is lower. The Quadro 5000’s dual-slot design, 6-pin connector, and 450 W suggested PSU indicate it is intended for a desktop workstation, not a mobile device. Its display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) are fixed and professional-oriented, unlike the GTX 950M’s portable-dependent outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The GTX 950M uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip on a 40 nm process. The GTX 950M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the Quadro 5000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. Transistor density is 12.6M per mm² for the GTX 950M, versus 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro 5000.

Clock speeds are only recorded for the GTX 950M, with a base of 993 MHz and a boost of 1,124 MHz. The Quadro 5000’s memory clock is 750 MHz with 3 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 950M’s memory clock is 900 MHz with 1,800 Mbps effective. Memory size differs: 4 GB of DDR3 for the GTX 950M versus 2.5 GB of GDDR5 for the Quadro 5000. The bus width is 128 bit for the GTX 950M and 320 bit for the Quadro 5000, with bandwidths of 28.80 GB/s and 120.0 GB/s respectively.

Core counts are distinct: the GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Pixel rates are 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950M and 11.29 GPixel/s for the Quadro 5000. Texture rates are 44.96 GTexel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 performance is 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the GTX 950M and 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000.

Power requirements are very different: the GTX 950M has a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro 5000 has a 152 W TDP and requires one 6-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The GTX 950M is an IGP slot width, while the Quadro 5000 is dual-slot. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the GTX 950M and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 5000. The Quadro 5000 has fixed dimensions of 248 mm length and 111 mm height, while the GTX 950M has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the GTX 950M and "1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort" for the Quadro 5000. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the GTX 950M supports Vulkan (1.4), while the Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support. The Quadro 5000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the GTX 950M has none. Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 950M released in 2015 and the Quadro 5000 in 2011.