NVIDIA Quadro M5000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M60 Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro M5000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M60

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and NVIDIA Tesla M60 share the same GM204 chip, Maxwell 2.0 architecture, 28 nm process node, and identical transistor counts, yet they diverge sharply in clock behavior, power envelope, and intended workload. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the Tesla M60 edges ahead in OpenCL by 0.1%, while the Quadro M5000 dominates in Vulkan by 4.6%. These two cards are twins separated by tuning philosophy, and the numbers reveal how NVIDIA differentiated professional visualization from datacenter acceleration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results tell a story of specialization. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla M60 scores 29,506 versus the Quadro M5000's 29,481, a razor-thin 0.1% margin. That difference is statistically negligible—the deltaPct rounds to zero, and the average benchmark scores for both cards (30,490 for the Tesla, 31,206 for the Quadro) suggest that day-to-day variance could flip this result. The OpenCL test favors raw compute throughput, and here the Tesla M60's higher boost clock of 1178 MHz gives it a theoretical FP32 peak of 4.825 TFLOPS, which is 13.5% higher than the Quadro's 4.252 TFLOPS. Yet the actual benchmark gap is only 0.1%, meaning the Quadro's higher base clock of 861 MHz (versus 557 MHz) and superior memory bandwidth of 211.6 GB/s (versus 160.4 GB/s) compensate substantially in real workloads.

The Vulkan result is where the Quadro M5000 asserts its dominance. Its score of 32,931 beats the Tesla M60's 31,473 by a decisive 4.6%. This is a meaningful margin in synthetic graphics benchmarks, and it aligns with the Quadro's role as a display-oriented workstation card. Vulkan exercises graphics pipelines, geometry processing, and memory access patterns that benefit from the Quadro's higher memory clock (1653 MHz versus 1253 MHz) and its correspondingly larger bandwidth advantage. The Tesla M60, with no display outputs at all, was never designed to excel in graphics-centric APIs—it is a compute accelerator that happens to support Vulkan.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both cards sit in similar performance tiers. The Quadro M5000's average score of 31,206 places it within 1.5% of the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676) and within 1% of the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31,532). The Tesla M60's average of 30,490 puts it just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433) and 1.8% ahead of the GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945). These rival comparisons show that despite being end-of-life Maxwell products from 2015, both cards still hover near modern midrange and previous-generation flagship territory in synthetic benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Tesla M60 wins by a negligible margin—29,506 versus 29,481, a delta of just 0.1%. In practice, this is a statistical tie, and the Quadro M5000's higher memory bandwidth may close the gap in memory-bound OpenCL tasks.

Q: Why does the Quadro M5000 win Vulkan by such a large margin?

A: The Quadro scores 32,931 versus 31,473, a 4.6% advantage. This likely stems from its 211.6 GB/s memory bandwidth (versus 160.4 GB/s) and its higher base clock of 861 MHz, which keeps performance more consistent under sustained graphics load.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are identical, so software compatibility is not a differentiator.

Q: Which card has better compute throughput on paper?

A: The Tesla M60 has a higher theoretical FP32 peak at 4.825 TFLOPS, thanks to its 1178 MHz boost clock. The Quadro M5000 peaks at 4.252 TFLOPS. However, this does not translate into a clear benchmark victory for the Tesla, indicating other factors like memory bandwidth play a crucial role.

Q: Are the cards physically identical?

A: Both use the same 398 mm² die, 5,200 million transistors, and dual-slot cooling. They also share the same 267 mm length. The key physical difference is power delivery: the Quadro draws 150 W with a 6-pin connector, while the Tesla draws 300 W with an 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Tesla M60 achieves 75.39 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 66.43 GPixel/s. This is a 13.5% advantage for the Tesla, driven by its higher boost clock, even though both have 64 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. They share identical transistor counts of 5,200 million and a die size of 398 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The shading unit count is identical at 2,048, as are the texture mapping units (128) and ROPs (64). Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those arrived with later architectures.

The divergence begins with clock strategy. The Quadro M5000 runs a conservative base clock of 861 MHz with a boost of 1038 MHz, while the Tesla M60 starts much lower at 557 MHz but boosts aggressively to 1178 MHz. This 140 MHz boost advantage for the Tesla translates into higher peak pixel and texture rates: 75.39 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s, and 150.8 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s. The Tesla's FP32 output of 4.825 TFLOPS also exceeds the Quadro's 4.252 TFLOPS by roughly 13.5%.

Memory subsystems differ significantly despite identical 8 GB GDDR5 capacities and 256-bit bus widths. The Quadro runs memory at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), yielding 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla operates memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), producing only 160.4 GB/s—a 24% deficit. This is the most consequential architectural difference for real-world performance, as it explains why the Tesla's compute advantage does not translate into benchmark wins across the board.

The power envelopes reflect these tuning choices. The Quadro M5000 draws 150 W with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Tesla M60 consumes 300 W, requires a 1x 8-pin connector, and needs a 700 W PSU. The Tesla's doubled power budget funds its higher boost clock and compute throughput, but it also makes the card less flexible for desktop integration.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro M5000 | Tesla M60 |

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

| Base clock | 861 MHz | 557 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1038 MHz | 1178 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps) |

| Memory bandwidth | 211.6 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Pixel rate | 66.43 GPixel/s | 75.39 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 132.9 GTexel/s | 150.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 4.252 TFLOPS | 4.825 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 150 W | 300 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 700 W |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |

| Dimensions (height) | 111 mm | Not specified |

| Release date | 2015-06-28 | 2015-08-29 |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | Tesla Maxwell (Mxx) |

The display output situation is stark: the Quadro M5000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Tesla M60 has no outputs whatsoever. This single difference defines their respective markets. Physical dimensions are identical in length at 267 mm, and both use dual-slot coolers. The Quadro's 111 mm height is specified, while the Tesla's height is not listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000 wins decisively in Vulkan-based graphics workloads, taking the 4.6% advantage in that benchmark. Its higher memory bandwidth (211.6 GB/s) and more stable base clock make it better suited for applications that stress memory access patterns and sustained graphics rendering. The presence of display outputs further cements its role as a workstation card for CAD, 3D modeling, and visualization tasks where driving multiple monitors is essential. Its 150 W TDP also makes it far easier to integrate into desktop workstations with modest power supplies.

The Tesla M60 wins in raw compute-oriented OpenCL performance, albeit by a marginal 0.1%. Its higher boost clock of 1178 MHz and correspondingly higher FP32 throughput (4.825 TFLOPS) give it an edge in compute-heavy tasks that can leverage its peak performance. The absence of display outputs indicates it is intended for server racks and datacenter deployments where headless operation is the norm. Its 300 W TDP and 8-pin power requirement suggest it belongs in systems designed for sustained compute loads, not desktop productivity.

The benchmark split is telling: each card wins the test most aligned with its design philosophy. The Tesla's compute-tuned clocks edge out the Quadro in OpenCL, while the Quadro's memory bandwidth and graphics-focused design dominate in Vulkan. Neither card is universally superior; the data shows a 1-1 split in wins, with the average benchmark scores (31,206 for Quadro, 30,490 for Tesla) favoring the Quadro by about 2.3% overall.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 if your priority is graphics-driven workstation performance. It wins the Vulkan benchmark by 4.6%, offers 211.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the Tesla's 160.4 GB/s, and includes four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus a DVI port for multi-monitor setups. Its 150 W TDP and 6-pin power requirement make it compatible with standard workstation power supplies. The higher average benchmark score of 31,206 versus 30,490 also indicates better overall synthetic performance.

Choose the NVIDIA Tesla M60 if your workload is compute-centric and you can operate in a headless server environment. It delivers 4.825 TFLOPS of FP32 performance—13.5% more than the Quadro—and wins the OpenCL benchmark, albeit by a hair. Its 1178 MHz boost clock provides higher peak pixel and texture rates, and its 300 W power budget is a trade-off you accept for sustained compute throughput. The lack of display outputs is irrelevant in a datacenter context.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. For desktop users who need to see their work, the Quadro M5000 is the only sensible choice. For server administrators deploying compute nodes, the Tesla M60's higher theoretical throughput and OpenCL edge make it the pick. The 0.1% OpenCL delta is too small to matter, but the 4.6% Vulkan margin is substantial—and it favors the card with the display connectors. If you require both graphics output and compute performance, the Quadro M5000 is the safer bet, as its benchmark average is higher and its feature set is more complete.