NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, with each card winning one of the two shared benchmark tests. The margin of victory, however, is not symmetrical.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K5000 posts a score of 11418, while the GeForce MX350 manages 8689. This translates to a 23.9% deficit for the MX350, a substantial gap that highlights the Quadro's advantage in raw compute throughput under this particular API. The Quadro K5000's score of 11418 places it clearly ahead, and this result aligns with its higher FP32 rating of 2.169 TFLOPS compared to the MX350's 1.879 TFLOPS.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the GeForce MX350 achieves 13077, while the Quadro K5000 scores 11169. The MX350 leads by 17.1%, a significant reversal from the OpenCL result. This suggests that the newer Pascal architecture in the MX350 handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently than the older Kepler design in the Quadro, despite the latter's larger hardware footprint. The MX350's Vulkan score is notably its stronger benchmark result, exceeding its own OpenCL score by roughly 50%, whereas the Quadro's Vulkan score is slightly lower than its OpenCL result.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the MX350 records an average of 10883, while the Quadro K5000 sits at 9637. This gives the MX350 an overall edge of about 12.9% when averaging across all recorded tests, though the head-to-head data shows each card has a distinct area of strength. The MX350's percentile ranking of 49 places it just above the midpoint of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K5000 ranks at the 46th percentile, a modest difference that reflects their similar overall standing despite the divergent per-test outcomes.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two GPUs with different strengths. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the pick for users whose workloads favor Vulkan, as it delivers a 17.1% advantage over the Quadro K5000 in that specific test. Its higher average benchmark score of 10883 versus 9637 also suggests it is the better-rounded performer in the database's aggregate metrics. The MX350 achieves this with a much lower thermal design power of 20 W compared to the Quadro's 122 W, and it requires no power connectors, making it suitable for compact or power-constrained systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000, on the other hand, is the choice for OpenCL-centric applications. Its 23.9% lead over the MX350 in that benchmark is decisive. The Quadro also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, along with a much wider 256-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s compared to 56.06 GB/s. For tasks that load large datasets into VRAM, the Quadro's memory subsystem provides a tangible advantage that the MX350 cannot match. Its dual-slot form factor and 267 mm length indicate a desktop workstation card, whereas the MX350 is described as having portable device dependent outputs, targeting mobile or small-form-factor implementations.

Neither card dominates outright. The choice hinges on the target application's API preference and memory requirements. For Vulkan-based workloads and overall average performance, the MX350 is the better option. For OpenCL-heavy tasks or scenarios needing more VRAM, the Quadro K5000 holds the edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 records an average benchmark score of 10883, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 averages 9637. The MX350 leads by approximately 12.9%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro K5000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11418, versus 8689 for the MX350. This represents a 23.9% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The GeForce MX350 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 13077, compared to 11169 for the Quadro K5000. The MX350 leads by 17.1%.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The GeForce MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The GeForce MX350 has a TDP of 20 W and requires no power connectors. The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GeForce MX350 ranks at the 49th percentile, while the Quadro K5000 ranks at the 46th percentile. The MX350 sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across most key specifications. The GeForce MX350 uses a 14 nm process node from Samsung, while the Quadro K5000 uses a 28 nm node from TSMC. This leads to different transistor densities: the MX350 packs 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro manages 12.0 million. Total transistor counts are similar at 3,300 million for the MX350 and 3,540 million for the Quadro, but the die sizes diverge sharply: 132 mm² for the MX350 versus 294 mm² for the Quadro.

Clock speeds favor the MX350 significantly. It runs at a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, whereas the Quadro K5000 is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MX350 uses 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro runs at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective.

The GPU configurations are starkly different. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Quadro K5000 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro's texture rate of 90.37 GTexel/s is nearly double the MX350's 46.98 GTexel/s, while pixel rates are similar at 22.59 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 23.49 GPixel/s for the MX350. FP32 performance favors the Quadro at 2.169 TFLOPS versus 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350.

The bus interfaces diverge as well. The MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the Quadro K5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the MX350 is listed as portable device dependent, while the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the MX350 has no listed dimensions. The Quadro's suggested power supply is 300 W; the MX350 has no such listing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The GeForce MX350 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP107S chip, while the Quadro K5000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. These are two distinct generations of NVIDIA design, with Pascal being the newer architecture. The MX350 belongs to the GeForce MX (3xx) generation, while the Quadro K5000 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) family.

The manufacturing process highlights the generational gap. The MX350 uses a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the Quadro K5000 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. This accounts for the MX350's much smaller die size of 132 mm² despite a similar transistor count, and it explains the higher transistor density of 25.0M per mm² versus the Quadro's 12.0M per mm².

Feature support differs in the API layer. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The MX350's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version reflect its more recent design. The MX350 also lists FP16 performance at 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro K5000 has no FP16 figure recorded.

Release timing shows the gap: the MX350 launched on 2020-02-09, while the Quadro K5000 launched on 2012-08-16. Both cards are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro K5000 has a predecessor in Quadro Fermi and a successor in Quadro Maxwell, while the MX350 has no listed predecessor or successor. The Quadro K5000 carries a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce MX350 wins in scenarios that leverage Vulkan. Its 17.1% lead over the Quadro K5000 in the Vulkan benchmark indicates better optimization for modern graphics APIs. The MX350's higher average benchmark score of 10883 versus 9637 also makes it the stronger choice for general mixed-workload performance. Its extremely low 20 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or compact systems where thermal headroom is minimal. The MX350's newer Pascal architecture and smaller die suggest better efficiency per watt, though the database does not provide direct efficiency metrics.

The Quadro K5000 wins in OpenCL-heavy environments. Its 23.9% advantage in that benchmark is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head data. The Quadro's 4 GB of memory, 256-bit bus, and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provide substantial advantages for workloads that require large framebuffers or frequent memory access. Its 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs offer more parallel throughput for compute tasks, and its texture rate of 90.37 GTexel/s is roughly double that of the MX350. The Quadro's desktop-oriented design with dual DVI and DisplayPort outputs makes it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups, and its 267 mm length indicates a full-size workstation card.

In summary, the MX350 is the better choice for Vulkan-based applications, average benchmark performance, and power-sensitive deployments. The Quadro K5000 is the better choice for OpenCL workloads, memory-intensive tasks, and users needing a professional multi-output desktop card. The split of one win each in the head-to-head tests underscores that neither card is universally superior; the correct selection depends entirely on the workload's API preferences and memory demands.