NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single overlapping benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 52,998, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418. That is a delta of 78.5% in favor of the mobile Ampere part, meaning the RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers roughly 4.6 times the OpenCL compute throughput of the older Kepler workstation card. This is the only direct head-to-head measurement available in the database, so any comparison beyond this must rely on each card’s average score and nearest rival positioning.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Quadro K5000 posts 9,637 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645 (0.1% ahead), the Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.2% ahead), the Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.3% ahead), and the Tesla C2070 at 9,716 (0.8% ahead). The K5000 is effectively at parity with these cards, trailing by less than one percent in every case. This suggests that, in terms of aggregate benchmark performance, the K5000 sits in a very competitive mid-pack region where small margins separate adjacent products.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 8,746, which places it in the 44th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8,743 (exact parity, 0% delta), the Quadro P2200 at 8,686 (0.7% behind the mobile card), the Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851 (1.2% ahead), and the Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (1.3% ahead). So the RTX 3050 A Mobile is also in a tight cluster, but its average is lower than the K5000’s average by about 891 points, or roughly 9.3%. This is a notable reversal from the OpenCL result, and it stems from the fact that the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s average includes several Passmark tests where it scores low, such as Passmark DirectX 9 at 152, Passmark DirectX 10 at 61, Passmark DirectX 11 at 94, and Passmark DirectX 12 at 55. These legacy API tests drag down its aggregate, whereas the K5000’s benchmark set consists solely of Geekbench workloads.

The head-to-head winner count reflects this: the RTX 3050 A Mobile wins 1 out of 1 shared benchmarks, while the Quadro K5000 wins 0. However, the average score comparison tells a different story, with the K5000 holding a higher overall standing. This discrepancy highlights the importance of workload selection. OpenCL is a compute-heavy, modern API test, and the RTX 3050 A Mobile dominates there. The Passmark DirectX tests, on the other hand, are older and less demanding, and the mobile card’s low scores there may reflect driver or architectural quirks rather than raw capability.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the decision hinges on what you prioritize. If you need raw OpenCL compute performance, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the clear winner, offering 78.5% higher scores in that specific test. Its 4,813 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, compared to 2,169 TFLOPS for the K5000, aligns with that result. The mobile card also supports modern APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the K5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

If you are looking at aggregate benchmark standing, the Quadro K5000 actually sits slightly higher in the database, with a 46th percentile versus 44th, and a higher average score of 9,637 versus 8,746. That said, the margin is small, and the K5000’s lead comes from the absence of low-scoring legacy tests in its benchmark set. For a builder focused on modern compute workloads, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the more capable option. For someone running older DirectX 9/10/11 applications, the K5000’s higher average might be more indicative of real-world behavior, though the data does not include direct comparisons on those APIs for the K5000.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. The K5000 launched in 2012 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile launched at the end of 2023 with no recorded MSRP. The power envelope differs drastically: the K5000 draws 122 W and requires a dual-slot cooler plus a 6-pin power connector, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is a 45 W IGP with no power connectors. For a laptop or compact system, the mobile part is far easier to integrate.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The architecture is Kepler, which is now quite old. It has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its base and boost clocks are both fixed at 706 MHz, and memory runs at 5.4 Gbps effective across a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, giving 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FP32 throughput is 2,169 TFLOPS, and there are no RT or tensor cores.

The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip on an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. That is a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm², which is over 3.6 times denser than the K5000. The architecture is Ampere, and it includes 1,792 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It also has 14 RT cores and 56 tensor cores, which the K5000 completely lacks. Base clock is 1,065 MHz and boost reaches 1,343 MHz. Memory is 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 12 Gbps effective for 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. FP32 throughput is 4,813 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 4,813 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the K5000 has no recorded FP16 figure.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 8 nm. That, combined with the newer architecture, explains why the RTX 3050 A Mobile achieves more than double the FP32 compute while drawing only 45 W versus 122 W. The memory bus is narrower on the mobile part (128-bit vs 256-bit), but the faster GDDR6 clocks still deliver higher bandwidth (192.0 GB/s vs 172.8 GB/s). The K5000 has more TMUs (128 vs 56), but its texture rate is higher at 90.37 GTexel/s versus 75.21 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors the RTX 3050 A Mobile at 42.98 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s.

The bus interface also differs: the K5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which offers more bandwidth per lane and is a much newer standard. Display outputs are another differentiator: the K5000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile’s outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile has 4,813 TFLOPS, which is more than double the Quadro K5000’s 2,169 TFLOPS.

Q: Do these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX 3050 A Mobile has RT cores (14 of them). The Quadro K5000 has no RT cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and needs a 6-pin power connector, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile has a TDP of 45 W and uses no power connectors.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile at 192.0 GB/s, versus 172.8 GB/s for the Quadro K5000, despite the K5000 having a wider 256-bit bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The K5000 averages 9,637 across its recorded tests (46th percentile), while the RTX 3050 A Mobile averages 8,746 (44th percentile).

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX versions?

A: The RTX 3050 A Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the K5000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 A Mobile wins decisively in OpenCL compute, as shown by the 52,998 versus 11,418 score, a 78.5% margin. This makes it the obvious choice for compute-heavy workloads like GPGPU tasks, machine learning inference, or any application that leverages OpenCL. Its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput (4,813 TFLOPS in both) reinforces this advantage. It also wins on modern API support, with DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and ray tracing capabilities that the K5000 cannot match. For gaming or modern rendering pipelines, the RTX 3050 A Mobile is the only one of the two that can handle RT workloads at all.

The Quadro K5000 wins on aggregate average score, 9,637 versus 8,746, which is driven by its absence of low-scoring legacy DirectX tests. If the workload is older DirectX 9/10/11 titles, the K5000’s higher average suggests it may hold up better, though the direct comparison data does not include those specific tests. The K5000 also has a wider 256-bit memory bus and more TMUs (128 vs 56), which could benefit certain texture-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its higher texture rate of 90.37 GTexel/s. It also offers fixed display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it easier to integrate into a workstation with multiple monitors without relying on laptop-specific implementations.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Ampere |

| Process node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 12,000 million |

| Die size | 294 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.0M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 706 MHz | 1065 MHz |

| Boost clock | 706 MHz | 1343 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1350 MHz, 5.4 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1536 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 128 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT cores | None | 14 |

| Tensor cores | None | 56 |

| Pixel rate | 22.59 GPixel/s | 42.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 90.37 GTexel/s | 75.21 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.169 TFLOPS | 4.813 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 4.813 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 122 W | 45 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | Not recorded |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2012-08-16 | 2023-12-31 |

| Production status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | Not recorded |