NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between these two workstation cards, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 points against 7,289 points for the NVIDIA Quadro 5000. That is a 68.2 percent deficit for the older card, meaning the M5000M delivers roughly three times the compute throughput in this workload. The margin is not subtle; it is the kind of gap that separates generations rather than minor refreshes.

Looking at the wider database context, the Quadro 5000 lands at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7,289. Its nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 (0.9 percent behind), the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 (1.2 percent behind), the GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171 (1.6 percent behind), and the Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 (1.7 percent behind). These deltas are small, indicating that the Quadro 5000 sits in a tightly packed cluster of mid-range parts from its era. It is not an outlier in either direction; it performs in line with those contemporaries, slightly ahead of each by single-digit percentages.

The Quadro M5000M, by contrast, shows a more complex profile. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6,481, which places it at the 37th percentile, slightly lower than the Quadro 5000’s 40th percentile. That seems counterintuitive given the OpenCL result, but the M5000M’s average is dragged down by a set of DirectX and compute tests that are not part of the Quadro 5000’s recorded data. The M5000M has nine recorded benchmarks: OpenCL at 22,920, Vulkan at 24,875, Passmark DirectX 10 at 35, DirectX 11 at 54, DirectX 12 at 29, DirectX 9 at 119, G2D at 476, G3D at 7,062, and GPU compute at 2,756. The Quadro 5000 has only the single OpenCL result, so the averages are not directly comparable.

In terms of nearest rivals for the M5000M, the database lists the Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6,476 (0.1 percent ahead), the GeForce GT 555M at 6,493 (0.2 percent ahead), the GeForce GTX 670M at 6,513 (0.5 percent ahead), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6,554 (1.1 percent ahead). These are all older or lower-tier mobile parts, and the M5000M trails each by a small margin in average score. That is a notable contrast with its OpenCL dominance over the Quadro 5000, suggesting that the M5000M’s strengths are concentrated in compute-style workloads rather than legacy DirectX rasterization tests.

The head-to-head comparison therefore tells a clear story: the M5000M wins the only overlapping test by a massive margin, while the Quadro 5000’s overall percentile ranking is slightly higher due to the limited benchmark set available for it. The data does not support a claim that the Quadro 5000 is faster in any recorded test; it simply has fewer data points, and those points happen to be in a test where it is far behind.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher recorded OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The M5000M leads by 68.2 percent in that test.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall database percentile?

A: The Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile. Despite the M5000M’s much higher OpenCL score, its average benchmark score of 6,481 is lower than the Quadro 5000’s 7,289 because the M5000M has additional DirectX and compute tests that score low.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for the Quadro 5000 in the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 750 with an average score of 7,222 (0.9 percent behind), the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 (1.2 percent behind), the GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171 (1.6 percent behind), and the Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 (1.7 percent behind). The Quadro 5000 is slightly ahead of all four.

Q: What benchmarks does the M5000M have that the Quadro 5000 does not?

A: The M5000M has recorded scores in Geekbench Vulkan (24,875), Passmark DirectX 10 (35), DirectX 11 (54), DirectX 12 (29), DirectX 9 (119), G2D (476), G3D (7,062), and GPU compute (2,756). The Quadro 5000 only has the Geekbench OpenCL result.

Q: Is the M5000M faster in every recorded test compared to the Quadro 5000?

A: The data only includes one test where both cards have scores, Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the M5000M is faster by 68.2 percent. No other direct comparisons are available, so the data cannot show wins for the Quadro 5000 in any test.

Q: How does the M5000M compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: The M5000M’s average score of 6,481 is slightly below the Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, 0.1 percent ahead), the GeForce GT 555M (6,493, 0.2 percent ahead), the GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, 0.5 percent ahead), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554, 1.1 percent ahead). All four rivals edge it out by small margins.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip, based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a smaller 398 mm² die, resulting in a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The M5000M therefore fits nearly 68 percent more transistors into a die that is about 25 percent smaller.

The compute resources differ sharply. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is over four times the shading units, more than double the TMUs, and 60 percent more ROPs. The pixel rate for the M5000M is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 11.29 GPixel/s for the Quadro 5000, a difference of nearly six times. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: 100.9 GTexel/s for the M5000M versus 22.57 GTexel/s for the older card.

Raw floating-point performance tells the same story. The Quadro 5000 delivers 722.3 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the M5000M reaches 3.229 TFLOPS, which is roughly 4.5 times higher. Neither card has recorded FP16, ray tracing, or tensor core data. Clock speeds also differ: the Quadro 5000 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the M5000M runs at a 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 5000 and 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M5000M.

API support differs as well. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M5000M also has a higher DirectX feature level, which matters for modern workloads that use advanced rasterization features.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in every major specification category. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the M5000M has 33 percent more bandwidth due to its faster memory clock. The Quadro 5000 uses a dual-slot form factor with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested power supply of 450 W. The M5000M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. Power draw is 152 W for the Quadro 5000 versus 100 W for the M5000M, meaning the newer card delivers far more performance while consuming about 34 percent less power.

The bus interface also differs: the Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the M5000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort on the Quadro 5000, while the M5000M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its mobile MXM design. Physical dimensions are recorded only for the Quadro 5000 at 248 mm length and 111 mm height; the M5000M has no recorded dimensions. Release dates are far apart: the Quadro 5000 launched on February 22, 2011, and the M5000M on August 17, 2015. The Quadro 5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the M5000M has no recorded MSRP. Production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro 5000’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler; the M5000M’s predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy tasks: the Quadro M5000M. Its OpenCL score of 22,920 is more than triple the Quadro 5000’s 7,289, and its FP32 rate of 3.229 TFLOPS dwarfs the older card’s 722.3 GFLOPS. It also has more memory (8 GB versus 2.5 GB), higher bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s), more shading units (1,536 versus 352), and lower power draw (100 W versus 152 W). For any workload that leverages OpenCL or modern DirectX 12 features, the M5000M is the superior choice based on recorded measurements.

The Quadro 5000’s only advantage in the database is its slightly higher percentile ranking (40th versus 37th) and its higher average benchmark score (7,289 versus 6,481). However, that average is based on a single test, while the M5000M’s average includes several low DirectX scores that pull it down. The percentile difference is within noise and does not reflect real-world performance in compute tasks. The Quadro 5000 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, but the M5000M has no such figure, so no cost comparison is possible from the data.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, memory capacity, or energy efficiency, the M5000M is the only logical pick. The Quadro 5000 might suit legacy applications that rely on its specific GF100 feature set, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any test where it outperforms the M5000M. The verdict is unambiguous: choose the M5000M for any modern workload, and only consider the Quadro 5000 if the application requires its older Fermi architecture or its specific display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The M5000M wins in every category where both cards have recorded data. Its OpenCL performance is 68.2 percent ahead, its FP32 compute is roughly 4.5 times higher, its pixel rate is nearly six times higher, and its texture rate is over four times higher. It also has more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and a higher DirectX feature level. The M5000M is the clear choice for OpenCL compute, DirectX 12 workloads, Vulkan applications (which the Quadro 5000 does not support at all), and any task that benefits from 8 GB of VRAM.

The Quadro 5000 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only favorable data points are the 40th percentile ranking and the 7,289 average score, both of which stem from a single OpenCL result. In the absence of any test where it beats the M5000M, the Quadro 5000 cannot be recommended for performance reasons. Its dual-slot form factor and 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort outputs might suit a desktop workstation with specific connectivity needs, but the data does not show a performance advantage there. The M5000M, as an MXM module, is designed for laptops and mobile workstations, so the form factor difference is a practical consideration rather than a performance one.

In summary, the M5000M wins on every measurable axis in the database. The Quadro 5000’s niche would be limited to systems that require its Fermi architecture, its PCIe 2.0 interface, or its specific display outputs, and even then, the data offers no evidence that it performs better in any recorded test. For anyone choosing between these two based on the numbers, the M5000M is the answer.