NVIDIA Quadro M5000 vs NVIDIA T600 Mobile Comparison

# NVIDIA T600 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000

The head-to-head benchmark data presents a fascinating generational clash: the T600 Mobile, built on Turing's 12 nm process, and the Quadro M5000, a Maxwell 2.0-era card from 2015, split their two Geekbench tests almost perfectly. The T600 Mobile takes the OpenCL crown with a 20.4% margin, while the Quadro M5000 answers back in Vulkan with an 8.3% advantage. This split suggests that the two GPUs are optimized for different compute workloads, with the newer architecture showing a clear edge in one API while the older card leverages its raw hardware resources in another.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the T600 Mobile scores 35,486 against the Quadro M5000's 29,481. That is a 20.4% advantage for the Turing-based card, a substantial gap that cannot be explained by clock speeds alone—the T600's boost clock of 1410 MHz is higher than the M5000's 1038 MHz, but the M5000 has more than twice the shading units (2,048 vs 896) and a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit. The data implies that Turing's architectural efficiency, including its 12 nm process versus Maxwell's 28 nm node, delivers superior OpenCL throughput despite far fewer hardware resources. This result aligns with the T600's average benchmark score of 32,849, which places it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, while the M5000 sits at 31,206 in the 76th percentile—a narrow overall gap that masks the lopsided OpenCL result.

The Vulkan test flips the script. Here, the Quadro M5000 posts 32,931, edging out the T600 Mobile's 30,211 by 8.3%. This is a curious inversion: Vulkan typically favors newer architectures with better driver optimization, yet the M5000's massive 2048 shading units and 128 texture mapping units appear to overcome any architectural deficit. The M5000's texture rate of 132.9 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 66.43 GPixel/s dwarf the T600's 78.96 GTexel/s and 45.12 GPixel/s, suggesting that fill-rate-heavy workloads in Vulkan play directly to Maxwell's strengths. The T600's FP32 throughput of 2.527 TFLOPS is also far below the M5000's 4.252 TFLOPS, yet the T600 still manages to win OpenCL by a wide margin—evidence of how much architectural efficiency matters over raw compute counts.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The T600 Mobile's closest competitor is the NVIDIA P104-100, which scores 32,982 and is only 0.4% behind—essentially a statistical tie. The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME and AMD FirePro S9300 X2 sit 0.8% and 0.9% behind respectively, while the T550 Mobile is 0.9% ahead. For the Quadro M5000, the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q is a perfect 0% delta match at 31,220, while the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 0.4% ahead, and the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell trails by 1%. These tight clusters indicate that both cards sit in crowded performance bands, with the T600 Mobile's 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die (23.5M transistors per mm²) versus the M5000's 5,200 million on 398 mm² (13.1M per mm²) explaining the T600's density advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 35,486, which is 20.4% higher than the Quadro M5000's 29,481.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the Quadro M5000 wins Geekbench Vulkan with 32,931 points, beating the T600 Mobile's 30,211 by 8.3%.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The T600 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 32,849, placing it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000 averages 31,206 in the 76th percentile.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The T600 Mobile features 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The T600 Mobile has a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per mm² (4,700 million on 200 mm²), compared to the M5000's 13.1 million per mm² (5,200 million on 398 mm²).

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the T600 Mobile and Quadro M5000 are listed as end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

The T600 Mobile is the clear choice for OpenCL-centric compute workloads. Its 20.4% lead in that benchmark, combined with a 77th percentile overall standing, suggests that applications leveraging OpenCL—such as certain scientific simulations or GPU-accelerated analysis tools—will see meaningful performance gains. The card's Turing architecture also brings FP16 support at 5.053 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the M5000 lacks entirely, making it better suited for workloads that can exploit mixed-precision arithmetic. Additionally, the T600's 40 W TDP and IGP slot width make it far more power-efficient, which matters for mobile workstations where thermal and power budgets are tight.

The Quadro M5000 wins in Vulkan, a cross-platform graphics and compute API increasingly used in game engines and real-time rendering. Its 8.3% Vulkan advantage, coupled with double the shading units (2,048 vs 896) and quadruple the texture mapping units (128 vs 56), points to superior raw geometry and fill-rate capabilities. The M5000 also offers 8 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, which is critical for large datasets or high-resolution textures that exceed the T600's memory capacity. The wider 256-bit bus and higher 211.6 GB/s bandwidth also give it an edge in memory-heavy workloads, even though its GDDR5 memory operates at a lower effective speed (6.6 Gbps vs 12 Gbps).

For users who need a balance of both APIs, the average scores tell a story of near-parity: the T600's 32,849 average is only 5.3% higher than the M5000's 31,206. However, the distribution of wins matters more than the average—if your software stack relies on OpenCL, the T600 is decisively better; if it uses Vulkan, the M5000 holds the edge. The T600's higher percentile placement (77 vs 76) is marginal, so the deciding factor should be the specific API and workload patterns of the target applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in almost every measurable specification. The T600 Mobile utilizes 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the M5000 packs 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs—exactly double in each category. Clock speeds also differ: the T600 runs at a 780 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost, whereas the M5000 operates at 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The T600's higher boost clock partially compensates for its fewer cores, but the M5000's raw throughput still wins on paper in FP32 (4.252 TFLOPS vs 2.527 TFLOPS) and texture rate (132.9 GTexel/s vs 78.96 GTexel/s).

Memory configurations are starkly different: the T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus for 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus for 211.6 GB/s bandwidth. The T600's newer GDDR6 memory achieves higher effective speeds despite the narrower bus, but the M5000 still edges ahead in total bandwidth. Power consumption tells another story: the T600 draws 40 W with no power connectors and an IGP slot width, while the M5000 requires 150 W, a dual-slot cooler, and a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. Physical dimensions also differ, with the M5000 measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the T600 has no listed dimensions due to its mobile IGP form factor.

The T600 supports FP16 computation at 5.053 TFLOPS, a feature absent from the M5000's specifications. Display outputs also vary: the T600 is labeled "Portable Device Dependent," while the M5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 connections. Both share PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, but their underlying hardware generations could not be more different.

Architecture Differences

The T600 Mobile is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, specifically the TU117 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It belongs to the Quadro Turing-M (Tx000) generation and succeeds the Quadro Pascal-M line. The 4,700 million transistors are packed into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². Turing introduces features like FP16 support with a 2:1 ratio, which the M5000 lacks entirely.

The Quadro M5000, by contrast, uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It is part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, succeeding Quadro Kepler and preceding Quadro Pascal. The 5,200 million transistors occupy a much larger 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 13.1 million per mm²—less than half the T600's density. Maxwell 2.0 has no FP16 compute capability, and its memory controller is optimized for GDDR5 rather than GDDR6.

The architectural gulf explains the benchmark split. Turing's 12 nm process allows higher clock speeds (1410 MHz boost vs 1038 MHz) with far lower power consumption (40 W vs 150 W), enabling the T600 to achieve competitive compute performance with a fraction of the resources. Maxwell's larger die and higher core counts compensate for its older process, but only in certain workloads. The T600's release date of April 2021 versus the M5000's June 2015 shows a six-year gap in design philosophy: Turing prioritizes efficiency and specialized features, while Maxwell emphasizes brute-force parallel throughput.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but conditional recommendation. For OpenCL-heavy workloads, choose the NVIDIA T600 Mobile—its 20.4% advantage in that benchmark, higher average score (32,849 vs 31,206), and superior 77th percentile ranking make it the objectively faster card in that API. Its 40 W power draw, IGP form factor, and FP16 support also make it a far more practical choice for mobile or power-constrained systems.

For Vulkan-based applications, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 is the better pick, with an 8.3% lead in that benchmark. Its 8 GB of VRAM, double the shading units, and higher texture and pixel rates provide headroom for memory-intensive and fill-rate-limited scenarios. The M5000's 150 W power requirement and dual-slot cooler are acceptable for desktop workstations, and its 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs offer flexible multi-monitor setups.

The average benchmark scores suggest near-total parity, with the T600's 32,849 only 5.3% above the M5000's 31,206. This means neither card is a universal winner—the choice hinges entirely on which API and workload patterns dominate your usage. If you cannot predict your API mix, the T600 Mobile's higher percentile and lower power footprint give it a slight edge for general purposes, but the M5000's memory capacity and raw core count remain compelling for specific professional tasks. In short: the T600 Mobile wins on efficiency and OpenCL, the Quadro M5000 wins on Vulkan and raw resources, and the overall verdict depends on your software stack.