GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 represent two distinct generations of professional mobile and desktop graphics, separated by a significant architectural shift. The data shows the older K5000, a Kepler-based desktop card, outperforming the newer Maxwell-based M2000M in both available compute benchmarks, despite the M2000M being the more recent release. This comparison reveals a fascinating clash between a power-efficient mobile chip and a larger, more power-hungry desktop board, with the benchmark results challenging the assumption that newer always means faster.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a higher average benchmark score of 9832, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5000's average score of 9637. This places the M2000M in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5000 sits just below in the 46th percentile.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmarks, which GPU wins the OpenCL test and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11418, outperforming the M2000M's score of 10057. This represents an 11.9% lead for the K5000.

Q: What is the difference in memory bus width between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 features a 256-bit memory bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a narrower 128-bit bus. This directly contributes to the K5000's significantly higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s versus the M2000M's 80.19 GB/s.

Q: How do their transistor counts and die sizes compare?

A: The Quadro K5000's GK104 chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro M2000M's GM107 chip has 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die. The K5000 has a slightly lower transistor density of 12.0M / mm² compared to the M2000M's 12.6M / mm².

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, making it a low-power mobile solution. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has a much higher TDP of 122 W and requires a 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of the Vulkan API?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 supports the older Vulkan 1.2.175 version. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, albeit counterintuitive, verdict: the older NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the superior performer in raw compute tasks. With an 11.9% win in OpenCL and a 14% win in Vulkan, the K5000 dominates the head-to-head comparison. For users whose priority is maximum compute performance in these specific workloads, the K5000 is the definitive choice. Its 2.169 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 90.37 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the M2000M's 1,455.4 GFLOPS and 45.48 GTexel/s, showcasing the advantage of its larger GK104 chip with 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs.

However, the M2000M is not without its merits. Its 55 W TDP and MXM-Module form factor make it a far more power-efficient solution, drawing less than half the power of the K5000. The data suggests this card is designed for a different purpose entirely: professional mobile workstations where space and thermal constraints are paramount. The M2000M also benefits from a newer architecture, Maxwell, and a higher base clock of 1098 MHz compared to the K5000's 706 MHz, which helps it close the gap despite having fewer cores. The choice ultimately hinges on whether the user needs the K5000's raw power in a desktop workstation or the M2000M's efficiency in a laptop.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is decisive, with the K5000 wining both tests. The most significant victory for the K5000 comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 11169 against the M2000M's 9606. This 14% delta is the largest performance gap between the two cards. The OpenCL test tells a similar story, with the K5000's score of 11418 besting the M2000M's 10057 by 11.9%. These results indicate a consistent and substantial performance advantage for the Kepler-based K5000 across different compute APIs.

The M2000M's higher average benchmark score of 9832, which is actually 2% higher than the K5000's 9637, seems contradictory at first glance. This can be explained by the fact that the average score likely includes a broader range of tests, and the M2000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 with an average score of 9846, just 0.1% higher. In contrast, the K5000's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, scores 9665, which is 0.3% higher than the K5000. The data suggests that while the K5000 wins in the specific head-to-head tests, its overall standing is slightly lower, possibly due to weaker performance in other unlisted benchmarks or a different set of competing products.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a fundamental difference in design philosophy. The K5000 is a desktop-focused card with a dual-slot form factor, a 267 mm length, and a 111 mm height, while the M2000M is an MXM Module, indicating a mobile or small-form-factor design. The K5000's power requirements are significantly higher, with a 122 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector, compared to the M2000M's 55 W TDP and no power connectors. The bus interface also differs, with the K5000 using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the M2000M using MXM-A (3.0).

Memory configuration is another key differentiator. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the K5000's 256-bit bus provides a massive 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the M2000M's 80.19 GB/s from its 128-bit bus. The K5000's memory clock is also higher at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus the M2000M's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Clock speeds tell a different story, however, with the M2000M having a significantly higher base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, while the K5000 is locked at a static 706 MHz. The K5000 also has a much larger physical footprint, measuring 267 mm in length compared to the M2000M's portable device-dependent outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, representing a generational shift from Kepler to Maxwell. The K5000 is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, while the M2000M uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process, but the K5000's die is nearly twice as large at 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors versus the M2000M's 148 mm² and 1,870 million. The K5000's larger chip allows for a significantly higher number of shading units (1536 vs 640), TMUs (128 vs 40), and ROPs (32 vs 16).

The core count disparity is the primary driver of the K5000's performance advantage. Its 1536 shading units are 2.4 times the number in the M2000M, and its 128 TMUs provide a texture rate of 90.37 GTexel/s, double the 45.48 GTexel/s of the M2000M. The K5000's FP32 performance of 2.169 TFLOPS also eclipses the M2000M's 1,455.4 GFLOPS. The M2000M, however, compensates with a higher clock speed and a more efficient architecture, as evidenced by its higher transistor density of 12.6M / mm² versus the K5000's 12.0M / mm². The K5000 does have a slightly higher pixel rate of 22.59 GPixel/s compared to the M2000M's 18.19 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the clear winner in raw compute performance, taking both head-to-head benchmarks. Its dominance in FP32, texture, and pixel rates makes it the superior choice for compute-intensive professional workloads such as 3D rendering, scientific simulation, and video processing that rely heavily on parallel processing. The data shows it is also the better option for users who require a high-bandwidth memory interface, as its 172.8 GB/s bandwidth is essential for working with large datasets. The K5000's support for dual DVI and dual DisplayPort outputs also makes it a more versatile option for multi-monitor desktop setups.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 55 W TDP, MXM-Module form factor, and lack of power connectors make it the only viable choice for mobile workstations. While it loses on compute performance, its higher clock speeds of 1098 MHz and 1137 MHz boost show that it can still deliver respectable performance in a much smaller power envelope. The M2000M's support for Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the K5000's 1.2.175, also suggests better forward-looking software compatibility. For users who need a professional-grade GPU in a laptop, the M2000M is the only option, but the K5000's performance data makes it the undisputed winner in a desktop context.