NVIDIA Quadro K5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 are both professional workstation GPUs built on the same Kepler architecture, yet they serve distinctly different physical computing environments. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the mobile-oriented K5100M taking the lead in both available benchmark tests, but the K5000 offers a larger frame buffer and a more conventional desktop footprint. The following analysis breaks down the measurable differences and what they mean for a buyer.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisively in favor of the K5100M, though the margin varies significantly by test. In the Geekbench Metal benchmark, the K5100M scores 8,315 points against the K5000’s 6,324 points. That is a 31.5% advantage, which is a substantial gap for two GPUs sharing the same GK104 chip and identical core counts. This suggests that the K5100M’s higher clock speeds have a disproportionate impact on Metal workloads, likely due to better memory latency handling or driver optimizations for that API.

The Geekbench OpenCL test tells a much closer story. Here, the K5100M scores 11,771 points, while the K5000 trails with 11,418 points, resulting in a 3.1% delta. This near-tie is consistent with both cards having the exact same 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K5100M’s lead in this compute-oriented test is entirely attributable to its 771 MHz clock versus the K5000’s 706 MHz, which yields a corresponding 9.2% boost in theoretical FP32 throughput (2.369 TFLOPS vs. 2.169 TFLOPS). Yet the actual benchmark delta is only a third of that theoretical advantage, indicating that OpenCL performance is limited by other factors like memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader context, the K5100M’s average benchmark score of 10,043 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375, which scores 10,070, a minuscule 0.3% difference. The K5000, by contrast, averages 9,637 points, sitting in the 46th percentile, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645 points, a 0.1% gap. The K5100M is effectively tied with the R9 M375, while the K5000 is statistically indistinguishable from the GTX 960M. This means the K5100M’s win over the K5000 is roughly equivalent to the difference between those two rival pairings.

The K5000 does have one unique benchmark result: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 11,169 points. The K5100M has no Vulkan score listed, so this is not a head-to-head comparison. However, the K5000’s OpenCL score of 11,418 is only 2.2% higher than its Vulkan score, indicating that its compute capabilities are consistent across those two APIs. The K5100M’s OpenCL score of 11,771 is 3.1% higher than the K5000’s OpenCL score, reinforcing the pattern that the mobile part is the faster compute device.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. They share identical transistor counts of 3,540 million and the same die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The core configurations are also identical: 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for this generation.

The fundamental architectural difference lies in the clock speeds and memory subsystem. The K5100M runs at a base and boost clock of 771 MHz, while the K5000 is locked at 706 MHz. This gives the K5100M a 9.2% raw clock advantage, which directly translates to its higher pixel rate (24.67 GPixel/s vs. 22.59 GPixel/s, an 8.4% delta) and texture rate (98.69 GTexel/s vs. 90.37 GTexel/s, an 8.4% delta). The FP32 compute rate follows suit, with the K5100M delivering 2.369 TFLOPS versus the K5000’s 2.169 TFLOPS, a 9.2% difference.

Memory is where the two diverge sharply. The K5100M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but its memory clock is only 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The K5000 has half the capacity at 4 GB, but its memory runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective), delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 50% bandwidth advantage for the K5000, which partially compensates for its lower core clocks in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The K5100M’s higher core clock cannot fully overcome this bandwidth deficit, which explains why its OpenCL lead is only 3.1% rather than the theoretical 9.2% from clocks alone.

The physical and interface differences are also architectural in nature. The K5100M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors, drawing a 100 W TDP. The K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, requiring a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, with a 122 W TDP. The K5100M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop implementation, while the K5000 offers fixed outputs: 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the K5100M wins both head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a 2-0 record. Its 31.5% lead in Metal is the single largest delta between the two cards, and its 3.1% lead in OpenCL confirms that it is the faster compute part overall. For any user prioritizing raw benchmark scores, the K5100M is the clear choice.

However, the K5000 is not without merit. Its 172.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is 50% higher than the K5100M’s 115.2 GB/s, which is a critical factor for large datasets that exceed the 4 GB frame buffer. In workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the K5000 could plausibly close the gap or even overtake the K5100M, though no such benchmark is present in this data. The K5000 also has a fixed desktop form factor with known display outputs, which is a reliability advantage over the mobile MXM module whose outputs are dependent on the host laptop.

The production status and release dates tell a chronological story. The K5000 was released on 2012-08-16, while the K5100M followed on 2013-07-22, nearly a year later. Both are now end-of-life, but the K5100M is the newer design. The K5000 had a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, which can be noted for historical reference, but the K5100M has no listed launch price.

For a mobile workstation user, the K5100M is the superior part based on benchmark data alone. For a desktop workstation user, the K5000’s higher memory bandwidth and fixed I/O might be more important than the K5100M’s faster clocks. The K5000’s lower percentile ranking (46th vs. 48th) and its negative deltas against its nearest rivals (ranging from -0.1% to -0.8%) suggest it is slightly below average for its class, whereas the K5100M’s deltas are mixed, ranging from -0.3% to +2%.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Clocks (Base/Boost): K5100M at 771 MHz; K5000 at 706 MHz.
• Memory Clock: K5100M at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective); K5000 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: K5100M at 8 GB; K5000 at 4 GB.
• Memory Bandwidth: K5100M at 115.2 GB/s; K5000 at 172.8 GB/s.
• Pixel Rate: K5100M at 24.67 GPixel/s; K5000 at 22.59 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: K5100M at 98.69 GTexel/s; K5000 at 90.37 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: K5100M at 2.369 TFLOPS; K5000 at 2.169 TFLOPS.
• TDP: K5100M at 100 W; K5000 at 122 W.
• Slot Width: K5100M as MXM Module; K5000 as Dual-slot.
• Power Connectors: K5100M has None; K5000 has 1x 6-pin.
• Suggested PSU: K5100M has None listed; K5000 at 300 W.
• Bus Interface: K5100M at MXM-B (3.0); K5000 at PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: K5100M at Portable Device Dependent; K5000 at 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2.
• Dimensions: K5100M has no dimensions; K5000 at 267 mm (10.5 inches) length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) height.
• Generation: K5100M at Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M); K5000 at Quadro Kepler (Kx000).
• Predecessor: K5100M at Quadro Fermi-M; K5000 at Quadro Fermi.
• Successor: K5100M at Quadro Maxwell-M; K5000 at Quadro Maxwell.
• Release Date: K5100M on 2013-07-22; K5000 on 2012-08-16.
• Launch MSRP: K5100M has None; K5000 at 2,499 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The K5100M averages 10,043 points across its benchmarks, while the K5000 averages 9,637 points. This places the K5100M in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, two percentile points above the K5000’s 46th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The K5100M scores 8,315 points in Metal, versus the K5000’s 6,324 points. That is a 31.5% advantage for the K5100M, making it the single largest win for either card in any head-to-head test.

Q: Does the K5000 have any advantages in memory capacity or bandwidth?

A: Yes. The K5000 has a higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s compared to the K5100M’s 115.2 GB/s, a 50% difference. However, the K5100M has double the capacity at 8 GB versus the K5000’s 4 GB.

Q: Are the core configurations identical between the two cards?

A: Yes, both have 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The difference in performance comes from the K5100M’s higher 771 MHz clock versus the K5000’s 706 MHz clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference, and how does it relate to form factor?

A: The K5100M draws 100 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The K5000 draws 122 W and is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card supports the Vulkan API?

A: Only the K5000 has a listed Geekbench Vulkan score of 11,169 points. The K5100M has no Vulkan score in the data, though both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175 in their API lists.