GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 wins 8 of the 9 head-to-head comparisons, with the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M taking a single victory. The most substantial margin comes in the Passmark G2D test, where the GTX 970 scores 764 against the Quadro's 476, a 60.5% advantage in 2D graphics performance. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any shared test.

Compute-oriented workloads also heavily favor the GTX 970. In Passmark GPU Compute, the GTX 970 scores 4073 versus 2756 for the Quadro M5000M, a 47.8% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows a 30.8% advantage for the GTX 970, with scores of 29982 and 22920 respectively. These results indicate that the GTX 970 is substantially stronger in general-purpose compute tasks.

DirectX performance across multiple versions consistently favors the GTX 970. The largest DirectX gap is in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, where the GTX 970 scores 41 against the Quadro's 29, a 41.4% difference. The DirectX 11 test shows a 31.5% lead (71 versus 54), while DirectX 10 shows a 31.4% margin (46 versus 35). Even in DirectX 9, the oldest API tested, the GTX 970 leads by 20.2% (143 versus 119). These results suggest that the GTX 970 maintains a consistent advantage across legacy and modern graphics APIs.

The Passmark G3D test, which serves as a broad measure of overall 3D graphics capability, gives the GTX 970 a 36.5% win, scoring 9638 against the Quadro M5000M's 7062. This aligns with the GTX 970's higher average benchmark score of 7157 across all tests, compared to the Quadro's 6481.

The single win for the Quadro M5000M comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 24875 against the GTX 970's 20005. This 19.6% advantage in the Vulkan API is notable, as it represents a 24.3% relative improvement for the Quadro over its own OpenCL performance, while the GTX 970's Vulkan score is actually 33.3% lower than its OpenCL score. This suggests the Quadro M5000M has a stronger Vulkan driver or hardware scheduling path.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental silicon: the GM204 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². Both are Maxwell 2.0 architecture parts, supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card features hardware ray tracing or tensor cores.

The GTX 970 is configured more aggressively in several compute aspects. It has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 56 ROPs. The Quadro M5000M, while using the same chip, has fewer shading units (1536), fewer TMUs (96), but more ROPs (64). This results in different rate limits: the GTX 970 achieves 65.97 GPixel/s pixel rate and 122.5 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Quadro M5000M achieves a slightly higher 67.26 GPixel/s but a lower 100.9 GTexel/s. The GTX 970's FP32 throughput is 3.920 TFLOPS versus 3.229 TFLOPS for the Quadro.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The GTX 970 runs at a base of 1050 MHz with a boost of 1178 MHz, while the Quadro M5000M operates at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 970 uses 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the Quadro M5000M uses 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite both having 256-bit memory buses, the GTX 970's higher clock yields 224.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 160.4 GB/s for the Quadro.

Memory capacity is a key differentiator: the GTX 970 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro M5000M has 8 GB. This doubles the Quadro's capacity, which is relevant for large datasets or high-resolution textures, even though its bandwidth is lower.

Form factor and power characteristics diverge substantially. The GTX 970 is a dual-slot desktop card, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU, with a 148 W TDP. The Quadro M5000M is an MXM Module (MXM-B 3.0 interface) with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP, designed for portable or modular systems. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 970 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970 is the clear winner for general graphics performance, legacy API compatibility, and compute throughput. Its Passmark G3D score of 9638 versus 7062 makes it the stronger choice for 3D rendering workloads that rely on traditional rasterization. The consistent 20-41% leads across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 indicate broad API coverage without weak spots. The 60.5% margin in Passmark G2D also makes it preferable for 2D GUI acceleration or desktop compositing tasks. The GTX 970's higher FP32 throughput and texture rate suggest it handles shader-heavy and texture-intensive workloads better.

The Quadro M5000M wins specifically in Vulkan-based workloads, as evidenced by its 24875 Geekbench Vulkan score versus 20005 for the GTX 970. This 19.6% advantage makes it the better option for applications that leverage Vulkan's explicit graphics and compute API, particularly in modern game engines or Vulkan-based compute frameworks. Its 8 GB memory capacity also gives it an edge for workloads that exceed 4 GB of VRAM, even if the available bandwidth is lower.

The Quadro's lower TDP (100 W versus 148 W) and MXM form factor make it the only viable choice for systems requiring a modular, low-power mobile GPU. The GTX 970's dual-slot desktop design and higher power draw preclude its use in such environments.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 has an average benchmark score of 7157, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 6481. The GTX 970 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro is at the 37th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark G2D, where the GTX 970 scores 764 versus the Quadro's 476, a 60.5% difference in favor of the GTX 970.

Q: In which benchmark does the Quadro M5000M outperform the GTX 970?

A: The Quadro M5000M wins in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 24875 against the GTX 970's 20005, a 19.6% advantage.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The GTX 970 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 224.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 with the same 256-bit bus but lower 160.4 GB/s bandwidth due to a slower memory clock (1253 MHz versus 1753 MHz).

Q: Are both cards based on the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GM204 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 5,200 million transistors and a 398 mm² die size. Both are Maxwell 2.0 architecture.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GTX 970 has a 148 W TDP and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors with a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro M5000M has a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and is an MXM Module form factor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M |

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

| Base Clock | 1050 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1051 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR5 | 8 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.4 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1664 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 104 | 96 |

| ROPs | 56 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 65.97 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 122.5 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.920 TFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 148 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2014-09-18 | 2015-08-17 |

| Launch MSRP | 329 USD | Not specified |

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 is the superior performer in almost every measurable category. Its 36.5% lead in Passmark G3D, 47.8% lead in GPU Compute, and 30.8% lead in OpenCL make it the stronger choice for users prioritizing raw graphics and compute performance. The consistent 20-41% margins across all DirectX versions indicate reliable performance across a wide range of applications. The GTX 970 also offers higher texture and FP32 throughput, which translates to better shader-bound and compute-bound workload handling.

The Quadro M5000M should only be selected when specific requirements align with its unique strengths: the 19.6% Vulkan performance advantage, the doubled 8 GB memory capacity, the lower 100 W TDP, and the MXM modular form factor. For systems that must use a mobile MXM module, or for workloads that specifically require more than 4 GB of VRAM or Vulkan API acceleration, the Quadro is the appropriate choice despite its lower overall benchmark scores.

The GTX 970's higher average benchmark score (7157 versus 6481) and higher percentile ranking (39th versus 37th) confirm its overall performance advantage. However, the Quadro's 8 GB memory capacity is a significant practical advantage for memory-bound tasks, even though its lower bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 224.4 GB/s) partially offsets this capacity benefit. Users who need maximum performance should choose the GTX 970; users who need a low-power, modular GPU with substantial VRAM and Vulkan strength should choose the Quadro M5000M.