NVIDIA Quadro M5000 vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA T1000 outperforms the Quadro M5000 in both tracked tests. The T1000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 37704 against 29481, a 27.9% advantage. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the T1000 again takes the lead with 34874 versus 32931, a 5.9% margin. The head-to-head tally stands at 2 wins for the T1000 and 0 for the M5000.

However, the choice is not purely about aggregate performance. The M5000 carries 8 GB of memory, twice the T1000's 4 GB, and its memory bus is 256 bit versus 128 bit. Its bandwidth of 211.6 GB/s is notably higher than the T1000's 160.0 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-capacity sensitive, the M5000 offers a structural advantage that the raw compute benchmarks do not capture. The T1000, by contrast, delivers higher compute scores in the database while consuming only 50 W against the M5000's 150 W, and it requires a 250 W suggested PSU versus 450 W. The T1000 also arrives in a single-slot form factor with no auxiliary power connectors, while the M5000 is dual-slot and needs one 6-pin connector.

The practical verdict from the data: the T1000 is the stronger compute performer and the more efficient card, but the M5000 remains relevant for tasks where 8 GB of memory and a wider bus matter more than raw throughput. Users with very large datasets that fit within 8 GB may find the M5000 preferable, while those prioritizing compute speed and lower system power draw should select the T1000. The percentile standings reinforce this split: the T1000 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the M5000 sits at the 76th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The T1000 uses the TU117 chip, built on Turing architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 12 nm process. The M5000 uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also at TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process gap explains much of the efficiency difference: the T1000 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The M5000 has 5,200 million transistors on a much larger 398 mm² die, achieving only 13.1M per mm².

The T1000 is part of the Quadro Turing generation, while the M5000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation. The T1000's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The M5000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal. Both cards lack ray tracing cores and tensor cores, according to the database, but they differ substantially in their compute resources. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The M5000 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The M5000's raw unit counts are higher across the board, yet the T1000 still wins the benchmark tests, which points to architectural efficiency gains from the newer Turing design.

Memory technology also diverges. The T1000 uses GDDR6 at 1250 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, while the M5000 uses GDDR5 at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective speed. The T1000 has a 128 bit bus and 4 GB capacity; the M5000 has a 256 bit bus and 8 GB capacity. The M5000's bandwidth advantage is significant: 211.6 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. Display outputs differ as well, with the T1000 offering four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors and the M5000 offering one DVI plus four DisplayPort 1.2 connectors. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the largest gap between the two cards. The T1000 scores 37704, while the M5000 scores 29481. That is a 27.9% difference in favor of the T1000. The T1000's average benchmark score across the database is 36289, and its nearest rivals in that metric are the AMD Radeon RX 5300M at 36529 (0.7% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36530 (also 0.7% behind). The M5000's average score is 31206, with the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31220 (0% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER at 31087 (0.4% behind) as its nearest comparables. These placements show the T1000 operating in a higher performance tier overall.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors the T1000. The T1000 scores 34874, the M5000 scores 32931, a 5.9% difference. This narrower margin suggests that the two architectures are closer in API-specific workloads that favor newer driver paths, but the T1000 retains the edge. The M5000's Vulkan score is actually closer to its OpenCL score than the T1000's is, which may indicate that the older Maxwell architecture scales differently across APIs. The T1000's OpenCL score is well above its Vulkan score, while the M5000's two scores are relatively close to each other.

The compute throughput figures in the database align with these benchmark outcomes. The T1000 delivers 2.500 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.000 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The M5000 delivers 4.252 TFLOPS FP32 and has no listed FP16 capability. Notably, the M5000's higher FP32 peak does not translate into a benchmark win, which raises questions about real-world utilization versus theoretical peaks. The T1000 also achieves a pixel rate of 44.64 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 78.12 GTexel/s, while the M5000 achieves 66.43 GPixel/s and 132.9 GTexel/s. Again, the M5000 leads in these rasterization throughput metrics, yet the T1000 leads in the recorded application benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 has an average benchmark score of 36289, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has an average score of 31206. The T1000 also ranks at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, versus the 76th percentile for the M5000.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and does it matter for the benchmark results?

A: The T1000 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the M5000's larger memory capacity and higher bandwidth, the T1000 wins both recorded benchmarks, indicating that compute efficiency outweighs memory throughput in these tests.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The T1000 has a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no external power connectors. The M5000 has a 150 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 450 W, requiring one 6-pin power connector.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA T1000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The T1000 supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The M5000 supports one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The T1000's DisplayPort version is newer.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two cards?

A: The T1000 was released on May 5, 2021. The M5000 was released on June 28, 2015. The T1000 is the newer product by roughly six years.

Where Each One Wins

The T1000 wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL lead of 27.9% over the M5000 indicates a substantial advantage in general-purpose GPU compute workloads. Its Vulkan lead of 5.9% shows that it also holds the edge in cross-platform graphics and compute APIs. The T1000's efficiency profile, with a 50 W TDP and no power connector requirement, makes it suitable for systems with limited power delivery or compact single-slot chassis. Its newer DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also support modern display connectivity standards.

The M5000 wins in memory-bound scenarios. Its 8 GB capacity doubles the T1000's 4 GB, and its 256 bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth provides 32% more bandwidth than the T1000's 160.0 GB/s. For workloads that load large textures, hold extensive geometry data, or process datasets that exceed 4 GB, the M5000's memory subsystem is the deciding factor. Its higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 4.252 TFLOPS and higher texture and pixel rates also suggest that rasterization-heavy tasks may behave differently than the recorded OpenCL and Vulkan tests indicate. However, the database does not contain benchmark data that isolates memory capacity as a variable, so this advantage remains structural rather than measured.

The T1000 is the better choice for compute performance, power efficiency, and modern display output support. The M5000 is the better choice for memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw rasterization throughput. The release timeline also matters: the T1000 is a 2021 product, while the M5000 is a 2015 product, and the architectural improvements in Turing over Maxwell are visible in the benchmark results.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA T1000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 in the database:

• Chip: TU117 versus GM204
• Architecture: Turing versus Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Turing (Tx000) versus Quadro Maxwell (Mx000)
• Process node: 12 nm versus 28 nm
• Transistors: 4,700 million versus 5,200 million
• Die size: 200 mm² versus 398 mm²
• Transistor density: 23.5M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm²
• Base clock: 1065 MHz versus 861 MHz
• Boost clock: 1395 MHz versus 1038 MHz
• Memory clock: 1250 MHz, 10 Gbps effective versus 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s versus 211.6 GB/s
• Shading units: 896 versus 2048
• TMUs: 56 versus 128
• ROPs: 32 versus 64
• Pixel rate: 44.64 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 78.12 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.500 TFLOPS versus 4.252 TFLOPS
• FP16: 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) versus not listed
• TDP: 50 W versus 150 W
• Slot width: Single-slot versus dual-slot
• Power connectors: None versus one 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 450 W
• Display outputs: four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.2
• Dimensions: 156 mm length, 69 mm height versus 267 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release date: May 5, 2021 versus June 28, 2015
• Predecessor: Quadro Volta versus Quadro Kepler
• Successor: Workstation Ampere versus Quadro Pascal
• Average benchmark score: 36289 versus 31206
• Percentile: 80 versus 76

Both cards share PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces, the same DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, and the same lack of ray tracing and tensor cores. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded in the database.