NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 manages 7,289 points. That puts the P2000 ahead by 63.8 percent, a massive margin that reflects the generational gap between the two cards.

To put the Quadro 5000's score into context, it sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 at 7,222 points (0.9 percent behind) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 points (1.2 percent behind). The Quadro 5000 edges out both, but only barely. It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE by 1.6 percent and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 by 1.7 percent. In other words, the older card is competitive with entry-level desktop and integrated graphics from a similar era, but it is not a standout performer.

The Quadro P2000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6,049, which places it at the 35th percentile. That average is pulled down by several low Passmark scores, but the P2000 shows a much wider range of capabilities. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 points (0.5 percent ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6,078 points (0.5 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 points (0.5 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 points (0.8 percent behind). The P2000 essentially trades blows with these modern low-end and integrated solutions.

The Geekbench Vulkan result for the P2000 is 23,566, which is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating strong compute performance under modern graphics APIs. The Quadro 5000 has no recorded Vulkan score, so no direct comparison is possible there. The database shows the P2000 also has a Passmark G3D score of 6,956, a GPU compute score of 2,933, and a G2D score of 626. Its DirectX 9 score is 124, DirectX 11 is 47, DirectX 10 is 34, and DirectX 12 is 28. These figures illustrate that the P2000 is far more versatile in legacy and modern API workloads alike.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras entirely. The Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. That process shrink is substantial, and it shows in the transistor density: the Quadro 5000 packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, for a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The P2000 fits 4,400 million transistors into just 200 mm², reaching 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The newer card crams more than three times as many transistors into a much smaller area.

Memory configurations differ significantly as well. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a narrower 160-bit bus, yet it still achieves higher bandwidth at 140.2 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks. The Quadro 5000 runs its memory at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the P2000 runs at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). More capacity and more bandwidth from a narrower bus is a clear sign of architectural efficiency gains.

Compute resources also favor the P2000 heavily. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The P2000 nearly triples the shader count and adds 20 TMUs while keeping the same ROP count. Pixel fill rate jumps from 11.29 GPixel/s on the Quadro 5000 to 59.20 GPixel/s on the P2000. Texture fill rate climbs from 22.57 GTexel/s to 94.72 GTexel/s. Floating point performance tells the same story: the Quadro 5000 delivers 722.3 GFLOPS in FP32, while the P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS. The P2000 also has a recorded FP16 figure of 47.36 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, which is quite low, but the Quadro 5000 has no FP16 data at all.

Clock speeds show the P2000 running much higher out of the box. The P2000 has a base clock of 1,076 MHz and a boost clock of 1,480 MHz. The Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, but its lower FP32 throughput at a higher reported transistor count suggests it ran at significantly lower frequencies. Power requirements differ dramatically: the Quadro 5000 draws 152 W and needs a 6-pin power connector plus a suggested 450 W power supply. The P2000 draws just 75 W with no power connector and a suggested 250 W power supply. The P2000 is also a single-slot card, while the Quadro 5000 is dual-slot.

Interface and display support differ too. The Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. The P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. API support favors the P2000: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. Physical dimensions are similar in height at 111 mm, but the Quadro 5000 is longer at 248 mm versus 196 mm for the P2000.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 5000 has no benchmark wins in the database. It loses the only head-to-head comparison, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 63.8 percent. Its sole recorded score of 7,289 places it in the 40th percentile, competitive with the likes of the GTX 750 and GTX 560 SE, but that is not a meaningful win category. It wins no DirectX, Vulkan, or compute tests because no such results are recorded for it.

The P2000 wins the only direct comparison and also demonstrates strength across a wider set of workloads. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 23,566 indicates solid performance in modern graphics and compute APIs. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,956 and GPU compute score of 2,933 show balanced capability in traditional 3D rendering and general-purpose compute. The P2000's Passmark G2D score of 626 covers 2D workloads, which the Quadro 5000 has no recorded data for.

Use-case splits follow directly from these numbers. The Quadro 5000 is limited to legacy Fermi-era applications, and its only measured strength is a marginal edge over old entry-level GPUs in OpenCL. It has no Vulkan support, no modern DirectX 12 feature level beyond 11_0, and significantly lower fill rates. Any workload that relies on modern APIs or high-throughput compute will favor the P2000.

The P2000 is the clear choice for OpenCL compute, Vulkan workloads, and DirectX 12 applications that can use feature level 12_1. Its higher pixel and texture rates also make it better suited for resolutions and settings that demand more fill throughput. The P2000's higher memory bandwidth, despite a narrower bus, helps in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, and its 5 GB frame buffer doubles the Quadro 5000's 2.5 GB capacity, which matters for larger textures and datasets.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. That is a 63.8 percent advantage for the P2000.

Q: Does the Quadro 5000 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the database, the Quadro 5000 has zero wins. Its only recorded benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which it loses.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the P2000 has 5 GB. The P2000 also has higher memory bandwidth at 140.2 GB/s versus 120.0 GB/s.

Q: What APIs does each card support?

A: The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W and requires a 6-pin power connector. The P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connector. The suggested power supply is 450 W for the Quadro 5000 and 250 W for the P2000.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The Quadro 5000 is in the 40th percentile among all GPUs, and the P2000 is in the 35th percentile. The P2000's average score is dragged down by low Passmark results across multiple API-specific tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 in every measurable category that matters for modern workloads. The OpenCL score alone, 20,125 versus 7,289, represents a 63.8 percent lead. The P2000 also offers nearly three times the shader count, more than four times the FP32 throughput, higher memory bandwidth, and double the frame buffer. It does all of this at half the TDP (75 W versus 152 W), in a single-slot form factor, with no external power connector.

The Quadro 5000's only relative strength is its percentile placement at 40, which is actually higher than the P2000's 35. That is a statistical artifact of the P2000's broader benchmark suite, which includes low Passmark API scores. The Quadro 5000 has just one recorded benchmark, so its percentile reflects a single data point.

For users choosing between these two, the P2000 is the rational pick for any compute, 3D rendering, or modern API workload. It is faster, cooler, more efficient, and more capable across the board. The Quadro 5000 should only be considered for legacy Fermi-era software compatibility, and even then, the data shows no scenario where it wins. The P2000 is the definitive choice based on the recorded measurements.