NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How close are these two GPUs in overall benchmark performance?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q averages 31220, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 averages 31142, a difference of only 0.3% in favor of the GRID card.

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro M5000 wins decisively. It scores 32919 in geekbench_vulkan, while the GRID M60-1Q scores 31220, representing a 5.2% advantage for the Quadro.

Q: What are the memory capacity differences between the two cards?

A: The GRID M60-1Q has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 256-bit memory bus.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro M5000 offers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 211.6 GB/s, compared to 160.4 GB/s for the GRID M60-1Q. This is driven by the Quadro's higher memory clock of 1653 MHz versus 1253 MHz on the GRID.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same underlying chip?

A: Yes, both use the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 5,200 million transistors and a 398 mm² die size.

Q: Do both cards have the same API support?

A: Yes, they share identical API capabilities: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

Both the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 are built on the same fundamental silicon: the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm. The transistor count is identical at 5,200 million, and the die size measures 398 mm² for both, yielding the same transistor density of 13.1M per mm². At the core level, the two cards are essentially twins: each packs 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The architectural differences emerge primarily in clock behavior and power management. The GRID M60-1Q operates with a base clock of 557 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, while the Quadro M5000 runs at a higher base clock of 861 MHz but a lower boost clock of 1038 MHz. This inverted clock profile is notable: the GRID card has a much wider dynamic range, allowing it to ramp up substantially under load, whereas the Quadro starts higher but has less headroom. The GRID's boost clock is 140 MHz higher than the Quadro's, which contributes to its higher peak compute throughput.

The memory subsystem differs in both capacity and speed. The GRID M60-1Q is equipped with 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the Quadro M5000 carries 8 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the Quadro's memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the GRID. This results in a bandwidth gap of 211.6 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. The Quadro also draws less power at 150 W TDP compared to the GRID's 225 W, and uses a single 6-pin power connector instead of an 8-pin. The suggested PSU is correspondingly lower for the Quadro at 450 W versus 550 W for the GRID.

The display output situation is a major differentiator. The GRID M60-1Q has no display outputs at all, reflecting its intended role as a virtualized GPU for cloud or data center use. The Quadro M5000, by contrast, provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it suitable for direct workstation display connectivity. The Quadro's generation designation is "Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)" with a predecessor of Quadro Kepler and successor of Quadro Pascal, while the GRID is classified under the "GRID (Mx)" generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and the results clearly favor the Quadro M5000. The Quadro scores 32919, while the GRID M60-1Q scores 31220. This gives the Quadro a 5.2% advantage — a meaningful margin in synthetic compute workloads. The GRID card wins zero benchmarks in this comparison, while the Quadro wins one.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GRID M60-1Q's average score of 31220 places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs, a performance tier shared by the Quadro M5000, which also sits at the 75th percentile with an average score of 31142. This near-parity in average scores is interesting given the 5.2% gap in the Vulkan test; the GRID's single benchmark entry (geekbench_vulkan at 31220) is its only data point, while the Quadro's average is derived from two entries: geekbench_opencl at 29365 and geekbench_vulkan at 32919.

The rival comparisons underscore how tight this pairing is. For the GRID M60-1Q, the nearest rival is the Quadro M5000 itself, with a delta of 0.3%. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 sits at 31112, also 0.3% behind, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is 0.6% ahead at 31401, and the GeForce RTX 3070 Ti trails by 1.2% at 30849. For the Quadro M5000, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 0.1% behind, followed by the GRID M60-1Q at 0.2% behind, the Quadro RTX 8000 at 0.8% ahead, and the GeForce RTX 3070 Ti at 1% behind.

These delta values reveal that both cards occupy a very narrow performance band. The entire spread between the lowest and highest rivals is roughly 1.8%, meaning that in real-world workloads, the choice between the GRID and the Quadro is unlikely to be decided by raw compute throughput alone. The 5.2% Vulkan win for the Quadro, however, does suggest that its combination of higher memory bandwidth and higher base clock provides a consistent edge in at least one major API workload.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture for different use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 is the stronger choice for any workload that benefits from the Geekbench Vulkan path, where it leads by 5.2% with a score of 32919 versus 31220. Its 8 GB memory capacity is eight times larger than the GRID's 1024 MB, and its memory bandwidth of 211.6 GB/s is 31.9% higher than the GRID's 160.4 GB/s. These memory advantages are substantial for any application that loads large datasets or textures into VRAM.

The Quadro also offers practical advantages in power efficiency: its 150 W TDP is 33.3% lower than the GRID's 225 W, and it requires only a 450 W suggested PSU versus 550 W. It also has a higher base clock of 861 MHz versus 557 MHz, which may translate to better sustained performance in workloads that do not trigger maximum boost states.

The GRID M60-1Q, however, has its own merits. Its boost clock of 1178 MHz is 140 MHz higher than the Quadro's 1038 MHz, yielding a higher peak FP32 throughput of 4.825 TFLOPS versus 4.252 TFLOPS — a 13.5% theoretical advantage. Its pixel rate of 75.39 GPixel/s and texture rate of 150.8 GTexel/s also exceed the Quadro's 66.43 GPixel/s and 132.9 GTexel/s. These figures suggest that the GRID card can deliver higher peak fill rates when fully boosted, despite its lower base clock.

The absence of display outputs on the GRID M60-1Q is a decisive factor for workstation users. Anyone needing direct monitor connectivity must choose the Quadro M5000, which provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Conversely, the GRID's no-output design is tailored for virtualized environments where the GPU is accessed remotely. The production status of both cards is end-of-life, and the Quadro has a documented lineage (predecessor Quadro Kepler, successor Quadro Pascal) while the GRID does not.

For a professional workstation, the Quadro M5000 is the data-backed recommendation: it wins the only head-to-head benchmark, offers vastly more memory, higher bandwidth, lower power draw, and display outputs. For a virtualized or cloud deployment where peak FP32 throughput and fill rates are paramount and display output is irrelevant, the GRID M60-1Q provides higher theoretical compute ceilings, though its benchmark average is statistically indistinguishable from the Quadro's.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

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

| Generation | GRID (Mx) | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) |

| Base Clock | 557 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 75.39 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 150.8 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.825 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-08-29 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Pascal |

| Average Benchmark Score | 31220 | 31142 |

The two cards share identical specifications in several key areas: both use the GM204 chip, Maxwell 2.0 architecture, 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, 5,200 million transistors, 398 mm² die size, 13.1M / mm² transistor density, 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, GDDR5 memory type, 256-bit memory bus, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, dual-slot width, 267 mm length, and end-of-life production status. The Vulkan benchmark scores differ notably, with the Quadro M5000 scoring 32919 versus the GRID's 31220. Both cards sit at the 75th percentile of all GPUs.