NVIDIA Quadro GV100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along generational lines. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins every head-to-head comparison in the database, with particularly dominant margins in compute-oriented workloads. The GV100's advantage is most pronounced in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 150,004 versus 29,481 for the Quadro M5000, a 408.8% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 again takes the lead with 139,526 against 32,931, a 323.7% margin. The M5000 does not register a single win in any recorded benchmark category.

The use-case split is therefore not about which card wins a given test, but rather about the nature of the workloads each card can handle at all. The Quadro GV100 is positioned for high-end compute and visualization tasks that demand large memory capacity, high bandwidth, and tensor core acceleration. The Quadro M5000, while a capable professional card in its own right, is limited to the workloads that fit within its 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and its Maxwell 2.0 feature set. The M5000's recorded benchmarks are limited to two Geekbench entries, which suggests the database contains no results for it in DirectX or Passmark tests, whereas the GV100 has results across nine different benchmarks.

For users working with datasets that exceed 8 GB, the GV100's 32 GB HBM2 memory is the deciding factor. For those running legacy professional applications that do not leverage Vulkan or OpenCL acceleration, the M5000 may still function adequately, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the GV100. The GV100 also holds the higher percentile ranking at 80 versus 76 for the M5000, indicating that in the full database of GPUs, the GV100 sits closer to the top of the performance distribution.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro GV100 in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The GV100 scores 150,004 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro M5000 scores 29,481. This represents a 408.8% difference, meaning the GV100 delivers approximately five times the OpenCL performance of the M5000.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head comparisons, both in Geekbench (OpenCL and Vulkan), and the GV100 wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the GV100 and 0 for the M5000.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GV100 has four times the capacity and over four times the bandwidth.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 scores 139,526 versus 32,931 for the M5000, a 323.7% advantage for the GV100.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GV100 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested power supply with a single 8-pin connector. The M5000 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested power supply with a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher overall standing in the database?

A: The GV100 holds an 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the M5000 holds a 76th percentile ranking. The GV100's average benchmark score is 35,520, compared to 31,206 for the M5000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head comparisons both come from the Geekbench suite, and both show a commanding lead for the Quadro GV100. In the OpenCL test, the GV100 produces a score of 150,004. The M5000 manages 29,481. The delta of 408.8% is substantial by any measure. To contextualize this, consider that the GV100's nearest rival in the overall database, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile, has an average score of 35,435, which is only 0.2% behind the GV100's average of 35,520. The M5000's average score of 31,206 places it in a different performance tier entirely, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31,220, a 0% difference.

In the Vulkan test, the pattern repeats. The GV100 scores 139,526, while the M5000 scores 32,931. The 323.7% delta is slightly smaller than the OpenCL gap but still represents a multi-generation performance leap. The GV100's Vulkan result is notably close to its OpenCL result, suggesting that the Volta architecture handles both APIs with similar efficiency. The M5000's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score (32,931 versus 29,481), but this does not close the gap to the GV100.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The GV100 has an average score of 35,520 across all recorded tests, while the M5000 averages 31,206. This 14% gap in average scores is smaller than the individual benchmark deltas, because the M5000's limited benchmark set (only two Geekbench entries) pulls its average toward the lower OpenCL and Vulkan results. The GV100's nine recorded benchmarks include several Passmark tests with lower scores, such as 84 in DirectX 12 and 140 in DirectX 10, which temper its average. Even so, the GV100 maintains a clear overall lead.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is a key differentiator: the GV100 is built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the M5000 uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor count reflects this generational gap, with the GV100 packing 21,100 million transistors against 5,200 million for the M5000. Die size increases from 398 mm² to 815 mm², and transistor density rises from 13.1M per mm² to 25.9M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the GV100. Its base clock runs at 1132 MHz with a boost of 1627 MHz, compared to 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost for the M5000. Memory clocks differ as well: the GV100 runs at 848 MHz with 1696 Mbps effective, while the M5000 runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective. Despite the M5000's higher memory clock, the GV100's HBM2 implementation delivers far greater bandwidth due to the vastly wider bus.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The M5000 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GV100 also includes 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the M5000. Pixel rate and texture rate follow the hardware counts: the GV100 achieves 208.3 GPixel/s and 520.6 GTexel/s, while the M5000 achieves 66.43 GPixel/s and 132.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 16.66 TFLOPS for the GV100 versus 4.252 TFLOPS for the M5000. The GV100 also supports FP16 at 33.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the M5000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory subsystems diverge completely. The GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth. Display outputs differ: the GV100 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Power consumption scales with performance: the GV100 draws 250 W with a 600 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector, while the M5000 draws 150 W with a 450 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin connector. Physical dimensions are identical at 267 mm length and 111 mm height, both dual-slot cards.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards spans two NVIDIA generations. The Quadro GV100 is built on the Volta architecture, which introduced tensor cores as a dedicated hardware unit for matrix operations. The GV100 includes 640 such cores, enabling accelerated deep learning and AI inference workloads. The Quadro M5000, based on Maxwell 2.0, has no tensor cores at all. The GV100's FP16 capability at 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) further supports these modern compute workloads, while the M5000 has no recorded FP16 support.

The memory architectures reflect different design philosophies. The GV100 uses HBM2, which stacks memory dies vertically to achieve a 4096-bit bus width and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The M5000 uses traditional GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. This is not merely a capacity difference; it changes the nature of memory-bound workloads. The GV100 can feed its 5120 shading units and 320 TMUs at a rate that the M5000's 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs cannot match. The GV100's 32 GB capacity also allows it to hold entire datasets in VRAM, a critical feature for scientific visualization and large-scale rendering.

The process node difference, 12 nm versus 28 nm, explains the transistor density gap. The GV100 crams 25.9 million transistors per mm², nearly double the M5000's 13.1 million. This density enables the GV100 to pack 21,100 million transistors into an 815 mm² die, whereas the M5000 fits 5,200 million into 398 mm². The architectural features built on this transistor budget include the tensor cores, the wider memory bus, and the higher shading unit count.

Both cards support the same DirectX version (12 with feature level 12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display output generation differs, with the GV100 supporting DisplayPort 1.4a versus the M5000's DisplayPort 1.2, but both are end-of-life products. The GV100 was released in March 2018, following the Quadro Pascal generation and preceding Quadro Turing. The M5000 was released in June 2015, following Quadro Kepler and preceding Quadro Pascal. The GV100's launch MSRP was 8,999 USD. Both cards use the PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The core architectural takeaway is that the GV100 represents a fundamental shift toward compute-heavy, tensor-accelerated workloads, while the M5000 is a more conventional rasterization-focused professional GPU from an earlier era.