NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 records an average benchmark score of 7289, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389. The Quadro 5000 leads by 14.1% in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What architecture does each card use?

A: The Quadro 5000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, while the GTX 580M uses Fermi 2.0 with the GF114 chip. Both are built on a 40 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 580M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The GTX 580M delivers 952.3 GFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS. The GTX 580M also has more shading units (384 vs 352) and more texture units (64 vs 44).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, while the GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W and uses an MXM module with no additional power connectors.

Q: Which card sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro 5000 is at the 40th percentile, while the GTX 580M is at the 37th percentile. The Quadro 5000's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 750 (0.9% ahead) and Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (1.2% ahead), whereas the GTX 580M matches the GTX 460 SE exactly and trails the RTX PRO 5000 by 0.3%.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single decisive test, the Geekbench OpenCL score, and the Quadro 5000 takes the win in that metric with 7289 against 6389. That 14.1% advantage places the Quadro 5000 in a clearly higher performance tier, and its nearest rivals reflect that positioning: it sits within 1.7% of cards like the GeForce GTX 750, Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, and GTX 560 SE. The GTX 580M, by contrast, lands at 6389, which puts it in a different competitive neighborhood, tied with the GTX 460 SE and only 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M350.

The GTX 580M does claim wins in several raw specification categories, even though those do not translate into benchmark victories. It has more shading units (384 vs 352), more texture units (64 vs 44), and substantially higher FP32 throughput (952.3 GFLOPS vs 722.3 GFLOPS). Its texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s is nearly double the Quadro 5000's 22.57 GTexel/s. However, the recorded OpenCL benchmark shows the Quadro 5000 outperforming it overall, which suggests that memory bandwidth and bus width matter more in this workload than raw shader counts.

For use cases involving memory-intensive compute, the Quadro 5000 wins clearly with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth and a 320-bit bus. For tasks that benefit from higher texture throughput and more shading units, the GTX 580M has the specification advantage, but the benchmark data does not confirm that this translates into a real-world win. The database records exactly one win for the Quadro 5000 and zero for the GTX 580M.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 5000 is built on the GF100 chip, which is the original Fermi architecture. The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip, which NVIDIA classifies as Fermi 2.0. This is a meaningful distinction: Fermi 2.0 is a refined version of the original Fermi design, with improvements in efficiency and clock scaling, though the database does not provide specific architectural details of those changes.

Both chips are fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC, and both have the same transistor density of 5.9M per square millimeter. The GF100 die is significantly larger at 529 mm² with 3,100 million transistors, while the GF114 is 332 mm² with 1,950 million transistors. This makes the Quadro 5000's chip about 59% larger by area and 59% larger by transistor count, but both share the same density.

The memory architecture diverges notably. The Quadro 5000 uses a 320-bit bus, while the GTX 580M uses 256-bit. Both use GDDR5 memory at 750 MHz with 3 Gbps effective speed. The wider bus on the Quadro 5000 gives it 120.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s on the GTX 580M, a 25% advantage.

The shading and texture configurations also differ. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The GTX 580M has 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 580M has 9% more shading units, 45% more texture units, but 20% fewer ROPs. This configuration suggests the GTX 580M is tuned for texture-heavy workloads, while the Quadro 5000 leans toward fill-rate and memory-bound tasks.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither has Vulkan support listed, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, as expected for Fermi-generation parts.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specification fields. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of memory versus 2 GB on the GTX 580M. The bus width is 320-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth is 120.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Shader configuration differs: 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs on the Quadro 5000, versus 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the GTX 580M. Pixel rate is 11.29 GPixel/s on the Quadro 5000 versus 9.920 GPixel/s on the GTX 580M. Texture rate is 22.57 GTexel/s versus 39.68 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 722.3 GFLOPS versus 952.3 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W, is dual-slot, requires a 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 450 W. The GTX 580M has a TDP of 100 W, uses an MXM module, has no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The Quadro 5000 measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the GTX 580M has no dimensions listed.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 5000 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 580M. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro 5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the GTX 580M is listed as portable device dependent.

The release dates are close: the Quadro 5000 launched on 2011-02-22, and the GTX 580M on 2011-06-27. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro 5000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The GTX 580M's predecessor is GeForce 400M and its successor is GeForce 600M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 5000 scores 7289, and the GTX 580M scores 6389. The delta is 14.1% in favor of the Quadro 5000.

This 14.1% gap is substantial. To put it in context, the Quadro 5000's nearest rivals in the overall database are the GeForce GTX 750 (7222, only 0.9% behind) and the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203, 1.2% behind). The GTX 580M, at 6389, is tied exactly with the GTX 460 SE and is 0.3% behind the RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell. These comparisons show that the Quadro 5000 sits in a performance band roughly 10 to 15 percent above the GTX 580M.

The specification data suggests why the GTX 580M might have been expected to win. It has more shading units, more texture units, and 32% higher FP32 throughput. Yet the benchmark shows the Quadro 5000 winning decisively. The likely explanation lies in memory bandwidth: the Quadro 5000 has 120.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, and a 320-bit bus versus 256-bit. In the OpenCL workload recorded, memory bandwidth appears to be the limiting factor. The Quadro 5000 also has more ROPs (40 vs 32), which helps with pixel throughput, and its pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s exceeds the GTX 580M's 9.920 GPixel/s.

The GTX 580M does have a clear advantage in texture throughput at 39.68 GTexel/s, which is 76% higher than the Quadro 5000's 22.57 GTexel/s. But this advantage does not appear in the recorded benchmark result. The data shows that the Quadro 5000 wins the only measured comparison, and that is the metric that matters for this database entry.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for compute-oriented workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro 5000. Its 14.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s) and a wider memory bus (320-bit vs 256-bit), makes it the stronger performer in the recorded benchmark. The Quadro 5000 also has more memory (2.5 GB vs 2 GB), which benefits larger datasets.

The GTX 580M is not without merits. Its 952.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is 32% higher than the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s is nearly double. For workloads that are purely shader-bound or texture-bound, those specifications could matter. However, the database records zero benchmark wins for the GTX 580M. Its OpenCL score of 6389 places it at the 37th percentile, below the Quadro 5000's 40th percentile.

The Quadro 5000's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 750 (0.9% behind) and the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (1.2% behind), which puts it in a competitive mid-range desktop segment. The GTX 580M's nearest rivals are the GTX 460 SE (tied) and the RTX PRO 5000 (0.3% ahead), which is a lower tier overall. The GTX 580M also has a lower TDP at 100 W versus 152 W, and uses an MXM form factor, making it suited for portable systems where power and space are constrained.

For a user choosing between these two, the Quadro 5000 is the pick for any OpenCL-based compute task, as the benchmark directly demonstrates. The GTX 580M makes sense only if the form factor (MXM), lower power draw, or higher raw shader count is a specific requirement, but the measured performance does not favor it. The database's single benchmark result gives the Quadro 5000 the win, and the specification differences support that outcome for memory-bound workloads. The GTX 580M remains a specification-heavy card that does not convert its theoretical advantages into a benchmark victory.