NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M represent two very different approaches to GPU design from the same era, with the former being a professional workstation card built on the Fermi architecture and the latter a high-end mobile gaming part based on Kepler. While the Quadro 5000 was designed for stability and certification in professional applications, the GTX 680M was engineered for raw performance in a power-constrained laptop chassis. Benchmark data shows a clear performance winner, but the architectural and feature differences tell a more nuanced story for specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a decisive victory to the GeForce GTX 680M. The GTX 680M scores 9,230 points, which is 21% higher than the Quadro 5000’s 7,289 points. This is a substantial margin that indicates the mobile gaming GPU holds a significant advantage in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The Quadro 5000’s score places it at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 680M sits at the 39th percentile, meaning both cards are in the lower-middle range of overall GPU performance, but the GTX 680M achieves this with better raw compute numbers.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro 5000’s score of 7,289 is just 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7,222) and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203). It also edges out the GeForce GTX 560 SE by 1.6% and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 by 1.7%. These are narrow margins, suggesting the Quadro 5000’s OpenCL performance is competitive with a range of older mainstream desktop and integrated graphics solutions.

The GTX 680M, on the other hand, sits in a slightly different competitive bracket. Its 9,230 score is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA T600 (7,035 in the rivals list, though the delta is listed as -0.2% suggesting a comparison against the average), and it is 1.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 970 (7,157). Interestingly, the GTX 680M’s average benchmark score of 7,023 is lower than its OpenCL score, due to the inclusion of a separate Geekbench Metal score of 4,815. This Metal score is significantly lower, pulling the average down, but the OpenCL result remains the headline performance number for compute.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a die size of 529 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, also from TSMC but on a much more advanced 28 nm process. This allows it to fit 3,540 million transistors into a smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter.

The Kepler architecture in the GTX 680M is significantly more efficient in terms of transistor density, which translates to a lower power draw. The GTX 680M has a TDP of 100 W, while the Quadro 5000 draws 152 W. This power efficiency is a key differentiator, especially considering the GTX 680M is a mobile part (MXM Module) while the Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

The compute capabilities are also starkly different. The GTX 680M features 1,344 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 has just 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. This massive difference in shading units explains the GTX 680M’s FP32 performance of 2.038 TFLOPS versus the Quadro 5000’s 722.3 GFLOPS. The GTX 680M also has higher pixel and texture rates, with 21.22 GPixel/s and 84.90 GTexel/s respectively, compared to the Quadro 5000’s 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is the clear winner, scoring 9,230 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro 5000’s 7,289, a 21% advantage.

Q: Is the Quadro 5000 more power-efficient than the GTX 680M?

A: No. The GTX 680M has a much lower TDP of 100 W compared to the Quadro 5000’s 152 W, making the mobile Kepler part significantly more power-efficient despite its higher performance.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, yielding 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 680M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GeForce GTX 680M supports Vulkan (version 1.2.175). The Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed in its API specifications.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The GTX 680M has more transistors at 3,540 million, compared to the Quadro 5000’s 3,100 million, despite having a much smaller die size of 294 mm² versus 529 mm².

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M are marked as end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every major specification. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip on a 40 nm process, while the GTX 680M uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process. The Quadro 5000 has a larger die at 529 mm², but the GTX 680M has more transistors (3,540 million vs 3,100 million). Clock speeds differ significantly: the GTX 680M has a base clock of 719 MHz and boost clock of 758 MHz, while the Quadro 5000 has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 680M’s memory runs at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity favors the GTX 680M at 4 GB, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB. The Quadro 5000 has a wider 320-bit memory bus versus the GTX 680M’s 256-bit bus, but the Quadro 5000 still achieves higher bandwidth at 120.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. Shading units massively favor the GTX 680M (1,344 vs 352), as do TMUs (112 vs 44). The Quadro 5000 has more ROPs (40 vs 32). Pixel and texture rates are both higher on the GTX 680M (21.22 GPixel/s and 84.90 GTexel/s vs 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is 2.038 TFLOPS for the GTX 680M versus 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000.

Power requirements are very different: the Quadro 5000 has a 152 W TDP, dual-slot width, a 6-pin power connector, and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the GTX 680M has a 100 W TDP, is an MXM module, and requires no power connectors. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 5000 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the GTX 680M. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort on the Quadro 5000, while the GTX 680M is portable device dependent. The GTX 680M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 5000 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 680M wins on raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 21% higher OpenCL score. Its 2.038 TFLOPS FP32 performance, higher pixel rate of 21.22 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 84.90 GTexel/s make it the superior choice for any compute-heavy or graphics-intensive workload. The GTX 680M also wins on power efficiency with a 100 W TDP versus 152 W, and it offers more memory capacity at 4 GB, along with Vulkan API support.

The Quadro 5000 wins in specific areas related to its professional workstation heritage. It has a wider 320-bit memory bus that delivers higher bandwidth (120.0 GB/s vs 115.2 GB/s), which can be beneficial for certain memory-bound professional applications. It also has more ROPs (40 vs 32), which could provide an advantage in specific fill-rate-limited scenarios. Its desktop form factor with dual-slot cooling and 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort outputs makes it a more flexible option for fixed workstation setups with multiple monitor configurations. However, these advantages are narrower than the GTX 680M’s compute lead.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is the more powerful GPU. Its 21% lead in OpenCL performance, combined with vastly higher shading unit counts and FP32 compute, makes it the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw graphics and compute throughput. The GTX 680M also achieves this with lower power consumption, making it a more efficient design overall.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000, however, retains a role for users who specifically need its professional feature set. Its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, along with more ROPs, could make it preferable for certain workstation applications that rely on those characteristics. The desktop form factor with dedicated display outputs is also a practical advantage for fixed workstations. However, given its lower performance, higher power draw, and lack of Vulkan support, the Quadro 5000 is only the better choice for users with specific legacy software or hardware requirements that favor its architecture. For general compute performance, the data clearly favors the GTX 680M.