NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct comparison between these two cards: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The result is decisive. The GeForce GTX 980 scored 34,676 points, while the Quadro 5000 scored 7,289 points. That is a 375.7% advantage for the GTX 980, meaning the newer card delivers roughly 4.8 times the raw compute throughput in this workload. If you are doing any OpenCL-accelerated rendering, filtering, or simulation work, the GTX 980 leaves the Quadro 5000 in a different performance class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the GTX 980 posts an average score of 8,167 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro 5000 averages 7,289. The GTX 980 sits at the 43rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile. Those percentile positions are close, but the average score gap (878 points, roughly 12%) hides how much faster the GTX 980 is in modern compute-oriented tests. The GTX 980 also has a much wider benchmark footprint: it has recorded scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (474 points), Geekbench Metal (15,163 points), Geekbench OpenCL (34,676 points), Geekbench Vulkan (22,543 points), PassMark DX10 (53 points), DX11 (83 points), DX12 (46 points), DX9 (164 points), G2D (792 points), G3D (11,095 points), and GPU Compute (4,753 points). The Quadro 5000 has only one recorded benchmark result, the Geekbench OpenCL score. That means the GTX 980's average is pulled from 11 different workloads, while the Quadro 5000's average comes from a single test. The Quadro 5000 is not competitive in any of the tests where both have data, and it has no data for the other ten tests.

The nearest rivals in the database further illustrate the gap. The GTX 980's closest competitors are the GeForce GTX 950M (average 8,135, delta 0.4%), Radeon R9 M360 (average 8,129, delta 0.5%), GeForce 945M (average 8,099, delta 0.8%), and GRID K2 (average 8,080, delta 1.1%). These are all within 1.1% of the GTX 980's average, which suggests that in the database's overall scoring, the GTX 980 is clustered with mid-range mobile and workstation parts, not with flagship desktop cards. The Quadro 5000's nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 750 (average 7,222, delta 0.9%), Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (average 7,203, delta 1.2%), GeForce GTX 560 SE (average 7,171, delta 1.6%), and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (average 7,170, delta 1.7%). The Quadro 5000 is similarly clustered, but at a lower absolute level. The delta between the two cards' averages (878 points) is larger than any of the deltas within their respective rival clusters, so the two cards are not even in the same neighborhood once you look past the percentile similarity.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip built on Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter. The node shrink and architectural redesign give the GTX 980 a 67.7% higher transistor count on a die that is 24.8% smaller, which explains much of its performance advantage.

The memory subsystems are very different. The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 224.4 GB/s of bandwidth and an effective 7 Gbps memory clock. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 320-bit bus, but only 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a 3 Gbps effective memory clock. Despite having a narrower bus, the GTX 980 delivers 87% more bandwidth because of the much higher memory clock speed. The GTX 980 also has significantly more execution resources: 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Pixel rate tells the story clearly: the GTX 980 outputs 77.82 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 5000 manages 11.29 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s for the GTX 980 versus 22.57 GTexel/s for the Quadro 5000. FP32 compute is 4.981 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS, a 6.9x difference in raw floating-point throughput.

The API support also differs. The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The GTX 980 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTX 980 is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors, with a 165 W TDP and a suggested 450 W PSU. The Quadro 5000 is also dual-slot but requires only 1x 6-pin, with a 152 W TDP and the same suggested 450 W PSU. The GTX 980 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the Quadro 5000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 375.7% higher than the Quadro 5000's 7,289. The GTX 980 is nearly five times faster in this specific workload.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the only head-to-head test recorded (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 980 wins. The Quadro 5000 has no other benchmark results in the database, so there is no data showing it ahead anywhere.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average score?

A: The GTX 980 averages 8,167 across 11 tests, while the Quadro 5000 averages 7,289 from a single test. The GTX 980 is about 12% higher on average, but the gap in the one shared test is much larger.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: For the GTX 980, the closest are the GTX 950M (0.4% delta), Radeon R9 M360 (0.5%), GeForce 945M (0.8%), and GRID K2 (1.1%). For the Quadro 5000, the closest are the GTX 750 (0.9%), Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (1.2%), GTX 560 SE (1.6%), and Iris Pro Graphics P580 (1.7%).

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980 has 224.4 GB/s on a 256-bit bus, versus 120.0 GB/s on a 320-bit bus for the Quadro 5000. The GTX 980 is 87% higher in bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for almost any workload. The GTX 980 is faster in the only directly comparable test, has a higher average benchmark score, more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 throughput. It also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro 5000 does not. The Quadro 5000's only advantages are a shorter card length (248 mm versus 267 mm), a lower TDP (152 W versus 165 W), and a single 6-pin power connector instead of two. If you need a card strictly for OpenCL compute, the GTX 980 is the only sensible pick from these two. The Quadro 5000's wider memory bus (320-bit versus 256-bit) does not compensate for its much lower memory clock and smaller pool of execution resources.

The Quadro 5000's average score of 7,289 puts it in the same range as integrated graphics like the Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170, 1.7% delta), which tells you it is not a modern compute part. The GTX 980, despite being older than many current GPUs, still sits at the 43rd percentile and beats the Quadro 5000 by 375.7% in OpenCL. If you are building a system for OpenCL acceleration, rendering, or any modern DirectX 12 or Vulkan workload, the GTX 980 is the card to use. The Quadro 5000 is only relevant if you specifically need its older Fermi feature set or its single 6-pin power requirement in a constrained power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 980 | Quadro 5000 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | GF100 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Fermi |

| Process | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die size | 398 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.1M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 2.5 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 256 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.4 GB/s | 120.0 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 7 Gbps effective | 3 Gbps effective |

| Shading units | 2048 | 352 |

| TMUs | 128 | 44 |

| ROPs | 64 | 40 |

| Pixel rate | 77.82 GPixel/s | 11.29 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 155.6 GTexel/s | 22.57 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.981 TFLOPS | 722.3 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 165 W | 152 W |

| Power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Length | 267 mm | 248 mm |

| Launch MSRP | 549 USD | 2,499 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980 wins in every recorded benchmark, every compute metric, and every memory bandwidth metric. It is the clear choice for OpenCL workloads, DirectX 12 (12_1) gaming, Vulkan applications, and any task that benefits from high FP32 throughput (4.981 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS) or high texture fill rate (155.6 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s). Its 4 GB frame buffer and 224.4 GB/s bandwidth also make it better suited for higher-resolution textures and larger working sets. If you want to run modern APIs or need more than 2.5 GB of video memory, the GTX 980 is the only option here.

The Quadro 5000 wins only in physical footprint and power draw. It is 19 mm shorter (248 mm versus 267 mm), which helps in compact cases. It draws 13 W less (152 W versus 165 W) and needs only one 6-pin connector, which simplifies cabling in older power supplies. Its 320-bit memory bus is wider, but that does not translate into a bandwidth advantage because the memory clock is so much lower. For a user who needs a dual-slot card with a single power connector and does not care about compute performance, the Quadro 5000 might fit a niche. But if you need any real performance, the GTX 980 wins outright.