NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 compare to the GeForce GTX 950M in average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K5000 averages 9,637 points across all recorded workloads, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs. The GTX 950M averages 8,135 points, placing it in the 42nd percentile. The Quadro holds a lead of roughly 18.5% in average score, though the two are separated by only a few points from their closest rivals.

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9,745 for the GTX 950M. This represents a 17.2% advantage for the Quadro in this compute workload.

Q: Is there a benchmark where the GTX 950M beats the Quadro K5000?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows two tests: OpenCL and Vulkan. The Quadro wins both. The GTX 950M has no recorded wins in these comparisons.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The Quadro K5000 scores 11,169 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 950M scores 6,525. The Quadro leads by 71.2%, a very substantial margin in this API workload.

Q: How does each GPU position against its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Quadro K5000 sits within 0.8% of four rivals: the GTX 960M (0.1% faster), Radeon Pro WX 2100 (0.2% faster), Quadro P4000 (0.3% faster), and Tesla C2070 (0.8% faster). The GTX 950M is 0.1% behind the Radeon R9 M360, 0.4% behind the GTX 980, 0.4% ahead of the GeForce 945M, and 0.7% ahead of the GRID K2.

Q: What are the production status and release timing?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K5000 was released on August 16, 2012, with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The GTX 950M was released on March 12, 2015, and has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives a clear split: the Quadro K5000 is the outright winner in both recorded workloads. There is no test category where the GTX 950M takes the lead.

For compute-heavy tasks using OpenCL, the Quadro K5000 delivers 17.2% more performance. This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific workloads, or any application that leverages OpenCL acceleration. The GTX 950M is not without merit in this category, but the gap is meaningful.

For Vulkan-based rendering or compute, the difference becomes extreme. The Quadro K5000 outperforms the GTX 950M by 71.2%. This suggests the Quadro's architecture handles the Vulkan API far more efficiently, or that the GTX 950M's mobile-oriented design struggles with this workload. Users targeting Vulkan applications should strongly favor the Quadro.

The GTX 950M does have one practical advantage: its form factor. It is an IGP (integrated GPU) with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The Quadro K5000 is a dual-slot card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. For desktop workstations with expansion space, the Quadro wins. For mobile systems, the GTX 950M is the only option of the two.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The GTX 950M uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900M generation.

Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GTX 950M contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, with a slightly higher density of 12.6M per mm². The Quadro has roughly 89% more transistors and nearly double the die area.

The Quadro K5000 features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These are substantial differences: the Quadro has 2.4 times the shaders, 3.2 times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs.

Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (the Quadro at version 1.2.175, the GTX 950M at version 1.4).

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950M also has 4 GB, but uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering only 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro's bandwidth advantage is 6 times greater, a critical factor for memory-intensive workloads.

Clock speeds favor the GTX 950M. Its base clock is 993 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz, while the Quadro runs at a flat 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks show the Quadro at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the GTX 950M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro K5000 | GTX 950M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK104 | GM107 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 640 |

| TMUs | 128 | 40 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 90.37 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.169 TFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2012-08-16 | 2015-03-12 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two benchmark tests. The Quadro K5000 wins both, but the margin varies dramatically between them.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 against 9,745 for the GTX 950M. The 17.2% advantage reflects the Quadro's larger shader count and much higher memory bandwidth. OpenCL workloads often scale with compute unit count and memory throughput, both of which favor the Quadro. The GTX 950M's higher clock speed (993 MHz base versus 706 MHz) helps it close some of the gap, but the Quadro's 2.4 times more shading units prove decisive.

The Vulkan test shows a more dramatic split. The Quadro K5000 scores 11,169, while the GTX 950M manages only 6,525. The 71.2% difference is substantial. Vulkan workloads tend to stress driver efficiency and memory subsystem performance. The Quadro's 172.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s for the GTX 950M is likely a major contributor. Additionally, the Quadro's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, provides more lanes than the GTX 950M's PCIe 3.0 x8 connection, which may matter for certain data-transfer patterns.

The wins tally confirms the dominance: the Quadro K5000 records 2 wins, the GTX 950M records 0. The average benchmark scores align with this trend: 9,637 for the Quadro versus 8,135 for the GTX 950M, a difference of approximately 18.5%.

It is worth remembering the GTX 950M's closest rivals in the database are all within 0.7% of its average score, indicating it sits in a tightly contested performance band. The Quadro K5000 similarly sits within 0.8% of its nearest rivals, but that band is roughly 1,500 points higher. The data suggests the Quadro occupies a higher performance tier overall, despite being released roughly two and a half years earlier. The GTX 950M's architectural efficiency (Maxwell is generally more power-efficient than Kepler) does not translate into a benchmark advantage in these recorded tests.