NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows three direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, and the GTX 980 wins all three by substantial margins. The largest gap appears in geekbench_opencl, where the GTX 980 scores 34,676 against the Quadro K5000’s 11,418, a delta of -67.1% from the GTX 980’s perspective. That means the GTX 980 delivers more than triple the OpenCL compute throughput in this test. The smallest relative gap is in geekbench_vulkan, where the GTX 980 scores 22,543 versus 11,169, still a -50.5% delta, meaning the GTX 980 is roughly twice as fast. In geekbench_metal, the GTX 980 posts 15,163 against 6,324, a -58.3% delta, again nearly 2.4x the Quadro’s result.

These are not marginal wins. Every benchmark in the head-to-head set favors the GeForce card by at least 50 percentage points. The Quadro K5000 does not win a single recorded test. However, the average benchmark score tells a more nuanced story: the Quadro K5000 has an average score of 9,637 across all its recorded benchmarks, while the GTX 980 averages 8,167. That apparent contradiction arises because the two cards were tested under different benchmark suites. The GTX 980’s average includes many Passmark DirectX tests (ranging from 46 in DirectX 12 to 164 in DirectX 9) and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 474, which drag its average down. The Quadro K5000’s average is based solely on Geekbench results, which are its strongest areas. So while the direct head-to-head shows a clear GeForce victory, the broader database average places the Quadro slightly higher relative to all other GPUs.

Looking at percentile rankings, the Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 980 sits at the 43rd percentile. That 3-point difference is small, but it indicates that the Quadro holds up better against the full field of recorded GPUs, likely due to its consistency across compute-oriented Geekbench tests. The GTX 980’s percentile is dragged by its older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 Passmark scores, which are low compared to modern cards.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different product generations. The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0, and belongs to the GeForce 900 generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The Quadro K5000 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The GTX 980 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, achieving 13.1 million per mm². The GTX 980 is physically larger and denser, which explains its higher raw throughput.

Clock speeds also differ. The Quadro K5000 runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost, with memory at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The GTX 980 runs at 1127 MHz base and 1216 MHz boost, with memory at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The GTX 980’s higher clocks, combined with more shading units (2,048 versus 1,536) and more ROPs (64 versus 32), produce dramatically higher fill rates. The pixel rate for the GTX 980 is 77.82 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and texture rate is 155.6 GTexel/s versus 90.37 GTexel/s. Both cards have 128 TMUs, but the GTX 980’s higher clock speed gives it a clear texture throughput advantage.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and bus width: both have 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. However, the GTX 980’s faster memory clock yields 224.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 172.8 GB/s for the Quadro K5000. The GTX 980 also supports newer API versions: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0) for the Quadro, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 980 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, which could affect data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The GTX 980 has a wider display output set: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Quadro K5000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the GTX 980 wins every single head-to-head test. That makes it the clear choice for applications that rely on Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan performance. The OpenCL gap is particularly striking: the GTX 980’s score of 34,676 is more than 200% higher than the Quadro’s 11,418. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the GTX 980 is unequivocally the stronger card. Similarly, for Vulkan-based rendering or compute, the GTX 980’s 22,543 score doubles the Quadro’s 11,169. For Metal (primarily relevant to macOS environments), the GTX 980’s 15,163 beats the Quadro’s 6,324 by a wide margin.

The Quadro K5000, despite losing all direct comparisons, still shows strength in its average benchmark score. Its 9,637 average is higher than the GTX 980’s 8,167, and its nearest rivals in the database (GTX 960M at 9,645, Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653, Quadro P4000 at 9,665) all sit within a narrow band around it. This suggests the Quadro K5000 is a consistent performer across the Geekbench suite, even if it lacks the peak performance of the GTX 980. The Quadro also has a lower TDP at 122 W versus 165 W, and requires a 300 W PSU versus 450 W, which could make it more suitable for systems with modest power budgets. Its dual-slot width and single 6-pin connector also simplify installation compared to the GTX 980’s dual 6-pin requirement.

For workloads that are not represented in the head-to-head set, such as DirectX 9, 10, 11, or 12 Passmark tests, the GTX 980 has recorded scores (164, 53, 83, and 46 respectively), while the Quadro K5000 has no such entries in the database. This means the GTX 980 has demonstrated capability in legacy DirectX titles, whereas the Quadro’s DirectX performance is unmeasured in this data. The GTX 980 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 474, suggesting it can handle modern DX12 gaming workloads, at least at this benchmark’s settings.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins all three recorded head-to-head tests: geekbench_metal, geekbench_opencl, and geekbench_vulkan. The Quadro K5000 wins none.

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

A: The largest gap is in geekbench_opencl, where the GTX 980 scores 34,676 versus the Quadro K5000’s 11,418, resulting in a delta of -67.1% relative to the GTX 980.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a higher average benchmark score at 9,637, while the GTX 980 averages 8,167. However, the GTX 980’s average includes more varied tests, including Passmark DirectX tests and 3DMark, which lower its mean.

Q: Do both cards use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 28 nm process by TSMC. However, the GTX 980 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with 5,200 million transistors, while the Quadro K5000 uses Kepler with 3,540 million transistors.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 980 has 224.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 172.8 GB/s for the Quadro K5000, despite both having 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GTX 980’s faster memory clock (7 Gbps effective versus 5.4 Gbps) explains the difference.

Q: Are there any API differences?

A: Yes. The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 in raw performance. Every recorded head-to-head benchmark shows the GTX 980 ahead by at least 50 percentage points, and in OpenCL it more than triples the Quadro K5000’s score. If the task is compute-heavy, Vulkan-based, or Metal-based, the GTX 980 is the only reasonable choice between these two. The GTX 980 also offers higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, double the ROPs, and newer API support, including DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. Its higher pixel rate (77.82 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s) makes it far better suited for high-resolution rendering or gaming-style workloads.

That said, the Quadro K5000 is not without merit in the database. Its average benchmark score of 9,637 is higher than the GTX 980’s 8,167, and it sits at the 46th percentile versus the GTX 980’s 43rd. Its lower TDP (122 W versus 165 W) and lower PSU requirement (300 W versus 450 W) make it easier to integrate into existing systems. The Quadro also uses a single 6-pin power connector, whereas the GTX 980 requires two. For users who prioritize power efficiency and system compatibility over peak performance, and whose workloads are primarily Geekbench-style compute tests, the Quadro K5000 remains a viable option.

However, the sheer magnitude of the GTX 980’s wins cannot be ignored. A 67% delta in OpenCL and a 50% delta in Vulkan are not small differences; they represent generational architectural improvements. The GTX 980 is the better card for anyone who needs maximum throughput in the measured benchmarks. The Quadro K5000’s higher average score is a statistical artifact of being tested only in Geekbench, where it performs consistently, but that consistency does not translate into a single head-to-head victory. The verdict is clear: the GTX 980 dominates the Quadro K5000 in every recorded comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | GeForce 900 |

| Chip | GK104 | GM204 |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 1127 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 1216 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 224.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 2048 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 77.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 90.37 GTexel/s | 155.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.169 TFLOPS | 4.981 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 165 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Width | Not specified | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-08-16 | 2014-09-18 |

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