NVIDIA Quadro K5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design, and benchmark data reveals a clear generational shift. The P4000, built on the Pascal architecture, and the K5000, from the Kepler generation, are separated by nearly five years of development. While their average benchmark scores are remarkably close — the P4000 averages 9665 and the K5000 averages 9637, a mere 0.3% difference — this similarity masks deep divergences in compute performance and architectural philosophy. The data suggests that the P4000 is not just a successor, but a fundamentally different tool optimized for modern workloads, while the K5000 remains a capable, if dated, workhorse.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a surprisingly one-sided picture in direct comparisons. In the two head-to-head tests available, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins decisively in both. The most dramatic victory comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the P4000 scores 41786 against the K5000's 11169, a staggering 274.1% advantage. This is not an incremental improvement; it is a generational leap in graphics API performance. The Vulkan API leverages modern hardware features like asynchronous compute and explicit multi-threading, areas where Pascal's architecture excels while Kepler struggles.

The Geekbench OpenCL test tells a similar story, with the P4000 achieving 36212 points compared to the K5000's 11418, a 217.1% margin. OpenCL is widely used for general-purpose GPU computing, and this result indicates that the P4000 is substantially better suited for compute-heavy tasks like simulation, rendering, and data analysis. The K5000 simply has no wins in the head-to-head data — zero victories against two for the P4000. However, the broader benchmark picture is more nuanced. The K5000 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 6324, which is notable because the P4000 has no Metal benchmark data in the pack. This suggests the K5000 could still be relevant for specific Apple ecosystem workflows, though the absence of a P4000 Metal score prevents a direct comparison.

The passmark suite, which the P4000 has data for but the K5000 lacks, shows the P4000's strengths in legacy APIs: 181 in DirectX 9, 66 in DirectX 10, and 86 in DirectX 11. These scores, while not directly comparable to the K5000, hint at broad compatibility. The takeaway is clear: for modern compute and graphics APIs, the P4000 wins outright; for older or niche Apple-specific workloads, the K5000 may still find a role.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two cards is their underlying silicon. The P4000 uses the GP104 chip fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC, while the K5000 uses the GK104 chip on a much older 28 nm process, also from TSMC. This process shrink is transformative. The P4000 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The K5000, by contrast, houses 3,540 million transistors in a 294 mm² die, with a density of just 12.0M per mm². In practical terms, the P4000 nearly doubles the transistor count while using a smaller process, enabling more complex compute units and higher efficiency.

Clock speeds tell a story of their own. The P4000 runs at a base clock of 1202 MHz and boosts to 1480 MHz, while the K5000 is locked at a flat 706 MHz with no boost capability. This clock advantage, combined with the architectural improvements, leads to massive throughput differences. The P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, more than double the K5000's 2.169 TFLOPS. The K5000 has no FP16 support at all, while the P4000 offers 82.88 GFLOPS (a 1:64 ratio, indicating FP16 is heavily deprioritized). Memory also differs: the P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 172.8 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the P4000's higher memory clock (7.6 Gbps effective vs 5.4 Gbps) gives it the bandwidth edge.

Other structural differences abound. The P4000 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the K5000 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. The P4000's higher ROP count explains its 94.72 GPixel/s pixel rate versus the K5000's 22.59 GPixel/s. The P4000 also supports newer standards: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs the K5000's PCIe 2.0 x16, DirectX 12_1 vs 11_0, and Vulkan 1.4 vs 1.2.175. Display outputs differ too, with the P4000 offering four DisplayPort 1.4a connections versus the K5000's two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2. Physically, the P4000 is a single-slot card at 241 mm, while the K5000 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm, though both use a single 6-pin power connector and suggest a 300 W PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct benchmark comparisons between these cards are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000's score of 36212 dwarfs the K5000's 11418. This 217.1% delta is not a statistical fluke; it reflects the P4000's superior FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth. For workloads that scale with raw compute — ray tracing, physics simulation, machine learning inference — the P4000 delivers more than three times the usable performance. The K5000's 4 GB frame buffer may be a limiting factor as well, since modern datasets often exceed that capacity.

The Vulkan test is even more lopsided. The P4000 scores 41786, while the K5000 manages only 11169, a 274.1% difference. Vulkan's low-overhead design rewards hardware that can efficiently submit and process draw calls. The P4000's Pascal architecture was designed with such APIs in mind, whereas Kepler predates Vulkan's specification. This result suggests that any modern game engine or real-time visualization tool using Vulkan will see a massive performance uplift on the P4000. The K5000's Vulkan support, listed as version 1.2.175, appears to be a compatibility layer rather than a native capability.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the two cards are nearly twins: the P4000 averages 9665, and the K5000 averages 9637. This 0.3% difference places them as direct rivals in the benchmark database's own ranking, with the P4000 slightly ahead. However, this average is skewed by the fact that the K5000 has only three benchmark entries (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the P4000 has ten, including several passmark tests where it performs modestly. The K5000's Metal score of 6324 is its strongest result, but without a P4000 equivalent, it's impossible to declare a winner there. In every directly comparable test, the P4000 wins by a factor of three or more.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9665, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 9637. This gives the P4000 a 0.3% advantage, placing it slightly ahead in the database's ranking.

Q: How much faster is the P4000 in Vulkan performance?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the P4000 scores 41786 versus the K5000's 11169. This represents a 274.1% performance advantage for the P4000.

Q: Does the K5000 have any unique benchmark results?

A: Yes, the K5000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 6324. The P4000 has no Metal benchmark data in the fact pack, making this the only test where the K5000 has a recorded score that the P4000 cannot contest.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 172.8 GB/s. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the P4000's memory runs at 7.6 Gbps effective versus 5.4 Gbps on the K5000.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The P4000 was released in February 2017, and the K5000 was released in August 2012.

Q: Which card has better raw compute throughput?

A: The P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K5000 delivers 2.169 TFLOPS. The P4000 is roughly 2.4 times more powerful in this metric.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior card for virtually every modern professional workload. Its 217% and 274% leads in OpenCL and Vulkan, respectively, are not marginal gains but fundamental advantages. For users running compute-intensive tasks like 3D rendering, scientific simulation, or video encoding, the P4000 is the only rational choice. Its 8 GB of memory also doubles the K5000's 4 GB, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The P4000's smaller physical footprint (single-slot vs dual-slot) and lower TDP (105 W vs 122 W) make it easier to integrate into dense workstation builds.

However, the K5000 is not without merit. Its Geekbench Metal score of 6324 suggests it may still be functional in Apple-centric environments where Metal is the primary API. The K5000 also has more TMUs (128 vs 112), which could theoretically aid in certain texture-heavy operations, though the P4000's higher clock speeds likely offset this. For users on a legacy software stack that only supports Kepler-era features, the K5000 might still serve, but this is a shrinking niche. The P4000's support for DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4 ensures forward compatibility, while the K5000's DirectX 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175 are increasingly obsolete. In the end, the benchmark data is unambiguous: the P4000 is the card to choose for anyone not explicitly locked into a Metal-only workflow.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA Quadro K5000 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GP104 | GK104 |

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1202 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.3 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 94.72 GPixel/s | 22.59 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 165.8 GTexel/s | 90.37 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.304 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) | null |

| TDP | 105 W | 122 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |