NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between two very different NVIDIA mobile and workstation graphics solutions. The GeForce GTX 950M is an older, low-power mobile chip, while the Quadro P5000 is a high-end professional desktop card. Despite their different market positions, their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, though their individual strengths and specifications could not be more distinct.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M has an average benchmark score of 8135, which is slightly higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P5000's average score of 8039. This represents a marginal difference of about 1.2% in favor of the GTX 950M.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Quadro P5000 dominates this test with a score of 52509, compared to the GTX 950M's score of 9745. The Quadro P5000 achieves a score that is roughly 438.8% higher, reflecting a massive performance advantage in this compute-oriented benchmark.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Quadro P5000 offers 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth from its 16 GB GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus. In contrast, the GTX 950M provides only 28.80 GB/s from its 4 GB DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus. This is a tenfold difference in memory throughput.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro P5000 has a significantly higher transistor density of 22.9M transistors per mm², compared to the GTX 950M's 12.6M per mm². This is due to the P5000's smaller 16 nm process node versus the 950M's 28 nm node.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance comparison?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 950M wins with a score of 6525, while the Quadro P5000 scores 6342. The GTX 950M leads by approximately 2.9%, showcasing a rare victory for the older mobile chip.

Q: What are the power and interface differences?

A: The GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Quadro P5000 has a TDP of 180 W and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The P5000 also requires a separate 1x 8-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, whereas the 950M has no power connectors and is an integrated form factor.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict for different user profiles. The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the definitive choice for professional, compute-heavy workloads and modern gaming at high resolutions, given its overwhelming lead in OpenCL performance, vastly superior memory subsystem, and support for DirectX 12 (12_1). Its 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth make it a workstation powerhouse.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, however, is the pick for legacy compatibility and energy-sensitive applications. Its win in the Vulkan benchmark, albeit by a slim 2.9% margin, and its much lower 75 W TDP make it a suitable option for older software titles or scenarios where power consumption and heat are primary concerns. Its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors indicate it is intended for compact, low-power mobile systems.

For raw compute and memory-intensive tasks, the Quadro P5000 is the only rational choice. For a lightweight, end-of-life mobile solution that can still handle older APIs, the GTX 950M remains relevant. The average benchmark scores, which are nearly identical, are misleading; they obscure the fact that these GPUs excel in entirely different domains.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark tests reveal a split decision. The most decisive victory belongs to the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the P5000 scores 52509 against the GTX 950M's 9745. This is a delta of -81.4% from the GTX 950M's perspective, meaning the P5000 is over five times faster. This result is consistent with the P5000's four-fold increase in shading units (2560 vs 640) and its significantly higher clock speeds.

Conversely, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M edges out a win in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The 950M scores 6525, while the P5000 scores 6342, giving the 950M a 2.9% advantage. This is a surprising result, given the P5000's superior hardware specifications. It suggests that the GTX 950M's driver optimization for this specific API workload may be more efficient, or that the P5000's focus on professional compute leaves Vulkan performance slightly less optimized.

The deltaPct values from their nearest rivals provide additional context. The GTX 950M's average score of 8135 is 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129) and 0.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8099). The Quadro P5000's average score of 8039 is exactly 0% different from the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8040) and only 0.2% lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053). These comparisons show that both cards sit in a crowded performance band according to their aggregate scores.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between these two GPUs is enormous. The GTX 950M is built on a 28 nm process, while the P5000 uses a 16 nm process. This leads to a major difference in transistor count: the GTX 950M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, whereas the P5000 has 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die.

Memory is another area of complete divergence. The GTX 950M features 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The P5000 features 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth. This tenfold bandwidth advantage is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

The core configurations are equally disparate. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The P5000 has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the P5000, with a base clock of 1607 MHz and boost of 1733 MHz, compared to the GTX 950M's base of 993 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz.

Power and physical requirements differ substantially. The GTX 950M has a 75 W TDP, an IGP slot width, and requires no power connectors. The P5000 has a 180 W TDP, a dual-slot width, a 1x 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The P5000 is also a physical card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the 950M is portable-device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between the two is defined by their respective generations. The GTX 950M is based on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip. The P5000 is based on the Pascal architecture, using the GP104 chip. This generational leap from Maxwell to Pascal brings significant efficiency and feature improvements.

The process technology is a major differentiator. The GTX 950M uses TSMC's 28 nm node, while the P5000 uses TSMC's 16 nm node. This allows the P5000 to achieve a higher transistor density of 22.9M per mm², compared to the GTX 950M's 12.6M per mm². It also enables the P5000's higher clock speeds and greater compute throughput.

Feature support also differs. The GTX 950M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P5000 also has a specific FP16 performance rating of 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 950M has no listed FP16 capability, indicating a focus on FP32 compute.

The memory architecture is distinct. The GTX 950M uses slower DDR3 memory with an effective speed of 1800 Mbps, while the P5000 uses GDDR5X with an effective speed of 9 Gbps. The P5000's memory is also clocked higher at 1127 MHz, versus the GTX 950M's 900 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 wins decisively in compute-intensive and professional applications. Its 438.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the clear choice for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and machine learning inference. Its 16 GB of GDDR5X memory and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle datasets and textures that would completely saturate the GTX 950M's 4 GB DDR3 pool. Its 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 performance is over six times higher than the GTX 950M's 1,438.7 GFLOPS, providing a massive advantage in raw number-crunching.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M wins in the specific case of Vulkan API performance, where it holds a 2.9% lead. This could translate to better performance in certain Vulkan-based games or applications that are not heavily optimized for the Pascal architecture. Its low 75 W TDP also makes it a winner in power-constrained environments, such as thin-and-light laptops where the P5000's 180 W TDP and dual-slot cooler would be impractical.

For legacy DirectX 11 (11_0) titles, the GTX 950M remains a viable option due to its Maxwell architecture and lower power draw. However, for any modern DirectX 12 (12_1) workload, the P5000's feature set and raw performance are superior. In summary, choose the P5000 for maximum compute and memory bandwidth, and the GTX 950M for low-power, legacy, or Vulkan-specific workloads.