NVIDIA Quadro 5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive blowout. The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 points, while the Quadro 5000 manages 7,289 points. That is a delta of 620.4% in favor of the P5000 — more than seven times the raw compute throughput of the older Fermi-based card. This single data point encapsulates the generational leap between the two products, but it also obscures how each card positions itself within the broader GPU landscape.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark average, the Quadro P5000 posts 8,039 points across its full suite of tests, which includes DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 workloads, Passmark G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The Quadro 5000’s average is identical to its lone Geekbench score of 7,289, since no other benchmarks were recorded for it. The P5000’s average is therefore 10.3% higher than the Quadro 5000’s, but this gap understates the true difference in performance because the P5000’s average is dragged down by several low DirectX scores.

Breaking down the P5000’s individual benchmarks reveals a card that is strong in some areas and surprisingly weak in others. Its best result is Geekbench OpenCL at 52,509, followed by Geekbench Vulkan at 6,342 and Passmark G3D at 12,634. Passmark GPU Compute comes in at 6,508, while the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 1,330. However, the Passmark DirectX tests tell a different story: DirectX 9 scores 170, DirectX 11 scores 102, DirectX 10 scores 77, and DirectX 12 scores just 44. The G2D score is 674. These numbers suggest the P5000 is heavily optimized for compute and modern API workloads rather than legacy rasterization paths.

In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs, the P5000 sits at the 41st percentile and the Quadro 5000 at the 40th percentile. This near-identical percentile ranking is counterintuitive given the massive OpenCL delta, but it reflects how the P5000’s poor DirectX scores pull its overall standing down relative to the broader GPU market. The nearest rivals for the P5000 include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040 (0% delta), the GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8,053 (-0.2%), the GTX 650 Ti Boost at 8,067 (-0.3%), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 at 8,080 (-0.5%). These deltas are all within half a percent, meaning the P5000’s average score places it squarely in a cluster of mid-range GPUs from earlier generations.

The Quadro 5000’s nearest rivals are slightly more varied. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 leads at 7,222 with a 0.9% delta over the Quadro 5000, followed by the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203 (1.2%), the GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171 (1.6%), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170 (1.7%). These deltas indicate the Quadro 5000 is competitive with entry-level discrete and integrated graphics from roughly its own era, but it is nowhere near the performance class of the P5000.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P5000 than the Quadro 5000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. This represents a 620.4% advantage for the P5000, meaning it delivers 7.2 times the raw compute performance.

Q: Which card has a higher aggregate benchmark average?

A: The Quadro P5000 has an average benchmark score of 8,039 across ten different tests, while the Quadro 5000 has an average of 7,289 based on its single Geekbench result. The P5000’s average is 10.3% higher.

Q: Do the two cards rank similarly against all other GPUs?

A: Yes. The Quadro P5000 sits at the 41st percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile. Despite the massive performance gap in OpenCL, both cards land near the middle of the overall GPU distribution.

Q: What is the P5000’s weakest benchmark result?

A: The P5000’s lowest score is in Passmark DirectX 12, where it manages only 44 points. Its Passmark DirectX 10 score of 77 and DirectX 11 score of 102 are also relatively low, indicating weak legacy API performance.

Q: How does the Quadro 5000 compare to its nearest rival, the GTX 750?

A: The Quadro 5000 scores 7,289, which is 0.9% higher than the GeForce GTX 750’s average of 7,222. The Quadro 5000 also edges out the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile by 1.2%, the GTX 560 SE by 1.6%, and the Iris Pro P580 by 1.7%.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The Quadro P5000 supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 6,342 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro 5000 does not list Vulkan support in its API specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P5000 is the clear winner in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,509 versus the Quadro 5000’s 7,289 makes it the obvious choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, scientific computing, and any task that leverages OpenCL. The P5000 also brings Vulkan support, which the Quadro 5000 entirely lacks, so any modern Vulkan-based application is exclusively a P5000 proposition. Furthermore, the P5000’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,330 shows at least some capability for current-generation DirectX 12 games, even if its Passmark DirectX 12 score is weak.

The Quadro 5000, by contrast, has no benchmark wins over the P5000. In the sole head-to-head test, it loses by 620.4%. Its only advantage lies in its percentile ranking, which at 40th is nearly identical to the P5000’s 41st percentile. This means that in the context of the entire GPU market, the Quadro 5000 is not as far behind as the raw scores suggest. For workloads that are heavily dependent on the specific driver optimizations of the Fermi generation, or for legacy software that predates Pascal support, the Quadro 5000 may still function adequately, but the benchmark data provides no evidence of any performance area where it beats the P5000.

For users with workloads that primarily use DirectX 9 or DirectX 10, the P5000’s scores of 170 and 77 respectively are low, but they still exceed what the Quadro 5000 would likely achieve given its lack of recorded scores in those tests. The P5000’s Passmark G3D score of 12,634 and GPU compute score of 6,508 further cement its status as the superior card for any modern graphics or compute task. The Quadro 5000’s only realistic use case is as a legacy workstation card for software that requires Fermi-era drivers or specific compatibility that newer architectures lack.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every hardware specification. The Quadro P5000 uses a 16 nm process node, while the Quadro 5000 uses 40 nm, both fabbed by TSMC. Transistor count is 7,200 million for the P5000 versus 3,100 million for the Quadro 5000, and the die size is 314 mm² for the P5000 versus 529 mm² for the Quadro 5000. This yields a transistor density of 22.9M per mm² for the P5000 versus 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro 5000.

Memory configurations differ substantially: the P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P5000’s memory clock is 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), whereas the Quadro 5000 runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

The P5000 features 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. Pixel rate is 110.9 GPixel/s for the P5000 versus 11.29 GPixel/s for the Quadro 5000. Texture rate is 277.3 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 8.873 TFLOPS for the P5000 versus 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000. The P5000 also has FP16 capability at 138.6 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 5000 has no FP16 specification listed.

Power draw is 180 W for the P5000 with a single 8-pin connector, versus 152 W for the Quadro 5000 with a single 6-pin connector. Both cards are dual-slot and share the same 450 W suggested PSU. The P5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the P5000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro 5000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. Physical dimensions are also distinct: the P5000 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, and the Quadro 5000 measures 248 mm (9.8 inches). Both are 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro P5000 is built on the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip, part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. The Quadro 5000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, belonging to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. The Pascal generation succeeds Quadro Maxwell and is succeeded by Quadro Volta. The Fermi generation succeeds Quadro FX Tesla and is succeeded by Quadro Kepler.

The P5000 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. This means the P5000 can handle feature-level 12_1 APIs, while the Quadro 5000 is limited to feature-level 11_0 even though it technically lists DirectX 12.

The release dates are separated by over five years: the P5000 launched on September 30, 2016, while the Quadro 5000 launched on February 22, 2011. Both cards are end-of-life products. The P5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, and the Quadro 5000 also has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. Both cards are dual-slot, dual-width designs with identical 450 W PSU recommendations, but the P5000’s higher TDP and 8-pin connector reflect its significantly higher compute throughput.

The architectural differences explain the benchmark results. Pascal’s 16 nm process allows for 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller die than Fermi’s 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors. The P5000’s 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is 12.3 times the Quadro 5000’s 722.3 GFLOPS. The P5000’s memory bandwidth of 288.5 GB/s is 2.4 times the Quadro 5000’s 120.0 GB/s. The P5000’s pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s is 9.8 times higher, and its texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s is 12.3 times higher. These architectural improvements across every subsystem are what enable the P5000’s 620.4% OpenCL advantage.