NVIDIA Quadro M5000 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two workstation cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 scores 29,481 points. This represents a 127.3% advantage for the RTX A2000 12 GB, a massive generational leap in compute throughput.

The RTX A2000 12 GB also holds a second recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, with a score of 1,309. The Quadro M5000 has no equivalent DX12 result in the database, so no direct comparison can be made on that workload. However, the average benchmark score tells a similar story: the RTX A2000 12 GB averages 34,154 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro M5000 averages 31,206. That is a 9.4% difference in aggregate performance, a narrower margin than the OpenCL result suggests because the M5000 has an additional Vulkan benchmark score of 32,931 that is not mirrored on the A2000 side.

Looking at the percentile standings, the RTX A2000 12 GB sits at the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro M5000 sits at the 76th percentile. The rivals lists reinforce the positioning. The RTX A2000 12 GB trades blows with the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (0.2% faster than the A2000) and the AMD Radeon RX 480 (0.5% slower than the A2000). The Quadro M5000 sits within 1% of the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, with the M5000 landing 1.5% behind the NVIDIA TITAN RTX.

The OpenCL result is the headline. A 127.3% advantage in that test is not an incremental gain; it is a doubling of raw compute performance. The FP32 figures in the specification data corroborate this: the RTX A2000 12 GB delivers 7.987 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M5000 delivers 4.252 TFLOPS. That is roughly 88% higher peak FP32 throughput, which aligns closely with the OpenCL delta.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 12 GB wins the only direct head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, by a wide margin. It also holds the only DX12 benchmark in the comparison, 3DMark Steel Nomad, with a score of 1,309. The Quadro M5000 has no DX12 result and no OpenCL head-to-head win. In fact, the M5000's only recorded win category is Vulkan, where it scores 32,931 in Geekbench Vulkan; the RTX A2000 12 GB has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database.

For compute-heavy workloads that lean on OpenCL, the data strongly favors the RTX A2000 12 GB. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a clear edge over the M5000's 8 GB of GDDR5 with 211.6 GB/s, which matters for large datasets that exceed the M5000's capacity. The RTX A2000 12 GB also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), so newer graphics features and mesh shader workloads will only run properly on the A2000.

The Quadro M5000, however, is not without its strong points. Its pixel rate of 66.43 GPixel/s is higher than the RTX A2000 12 GB's 57.60 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 132.9 GTexel/s also beats the A2000's 124.8 GTexel/s. These are rasterization throughput numbers, suggesting that in older, fill-rate-bound OpenGL or DirectX 11 workloads, the M5000 can hold its own or even lead. The M5000 also has more TMUs (128 vs 104) and more ROPs (64 vs 48), which underpin those higher fill rates.

For users running legacy professional applications, the M5000's 256-bit memory bus width and 8 GB frame buffer can still handle traditional viewport rendering. The RTX A2000 12 GB counters with higher memory speed and capacity, plus dedicated RT cores (26) and tensor cores (104) that the M5000 lacks entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The RTX A2000 12 GB is built on Ampere, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. The Quadro M5000 uses Maxwell 2.0, built on TSMC's 28 nm process. That process gap explains the transistor density: the A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors onto a 276 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm². The M5000 fits only 5,200 million transistors onto a larger 398 mm² die, for 13.1 million per mm². The A2000 is more than three times denser.

The chip identities differ as well. The A2000 uses the GA106 chip; the M5000 uses GM204. The A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The M5000 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A2000 has more shaders but fewer texture units and ROPs, which explains why its raw compute is far higher while its fill rate is lower.

Memory architecture is another major split. The A2000 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. The M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 211.6 GB/s. The A2000 compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory (12 Gbps effective vs 6.6 Gbps effective).

The A2000 includes hardware features the M5000 cannot match: 26 RT cores for ray tracing and 104 tensor cores for AI acceleration. The M5000 has neither. The A2000 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (7.987 TFLOPS for both), while the M5000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M5000 has a 150 W TDP, requires one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The A2000 is much shorter at 167 mm (6.6 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the M5000, and narrower at 69 mm (2.7 inches) versus 111 mm (4.4 inches). Both are dual-slot cards.

Interface and display output also differ. The A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and outputs four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The M5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and outputs one DVI plus four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2); the M5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The release dates reflect the generational gap: the A2000 launched on 2021-11-22, while the M5000 launched on 2015-06-28. Both are now end-of-life. The A2000's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. The M5000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 127.3% higher than the Quadro M5000's 29,481.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 win any benchmarks?

A: The M5000 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,931, which is the only benchmark category where it has a result that the A2000 does not. The A2000 has no Vulkan score in the database.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The RTX A2000 12 GB has 12 GB of GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 12 GB support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. The Quadro M5000 has neither RT cores nor tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RTX A2000 12 GB has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP, one 6-pin connector, and a suggested 450 W PSU.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Quadro M5000 has a 66.43 GPixel/s pixel rate and 132.9 GTexel/s texture rate. The RTX A2000 12 GB has 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s, respectively.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3328 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 104 | 128 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 26 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 104 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 57.60 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | None recorded |

| TDP | 70 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Length | 167 mm (6.6 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-11-22 | 2015-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 449 USD | None recorded |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Quadro Pascal |

| Average Benchmark Score | 34,154 | 31,206 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 79 | 76 |