NVIDIA Quadro M5000 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear sweep for the NVIDIA Tesla P4 across both benchmark workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Tesla P4 scores 34,947 points against 29,481 for the Quadro M5000, an 18.5% advantage. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Tesla P4 posts 40,309 versus 32,931, a 22.4% lead. Both cards are end-of-life products, but the performance delta is substantial and consistent across different API workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the Tesla P4's average benchmark score of 37,628 places it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M5000's average of 31,206 sits at the 76th percentile. The Tesla P4's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, scores 37,648, putting the Tesla P4 just 0.1% behind it. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 scores 37,507, with the Tesla P4 ahead by 0.3%. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 37,157, and the Tesla P4 leads by 1.3%. Conversely, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile scores 38,135, meaning the Tesla P4 trails it by 1.3%.

The Quadro M5000's nearest rivals tell a different story. The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220, essentially identical to the Quadro M5000's 31,206, a delta of 0%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 31,087, with the Quadro M5000 ahead by 0.4%. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell scores 31,532, making the Quadro M5000 1% slower. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX scores 31,676, putting the Quadro M5000 1.5% behind it. These numbers indicate the Quadro M5000 sits at the lower end of a performance band that includes much newer hardware, while the Tesla P4 competes with a significantly faster class of GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and process nodes. The Tesla P4 uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture at TSMC's 16 nm process. The Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture at TSMC's 28 nm process. This process difference explains much of the performance gap despite the Tesla P4's smaller physical footprint.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ notably. The Tesla P4 packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per mm². The Quadro M5000 carries 5,200 million transistors across a larger 398 mm² die, for a density of 13.1 million per mm². The Tesla P4 achieves higher density on a smaller die with more transistors, a direct result of the newer 16 nm process.

Compute resources favor the Tesla P4 across the board. The Tesla P4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro M5000 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Tesla P4's pixel rate is 71.30 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s for the Quadro M5000. Texture rate shows a larger gap: 178.2 GTexel/s for the Tesla P4 versus 132.9 GTexel/s for the Quadro M5000. FP32 compute reaches 5.704 TFLOPS on the Tesla P4, while the Quadro M5000 manages 4.252 TFLOPS. The Tesla P4 also lists FP16 performance at 89.12 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro M5000 has no FP16 measurement recorded.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and type but differ in bandwidth. Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus. The Quadro M5000's memory runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, delivering 211.6 GB/s. The Tesla P4's memory runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, delivering 192.3 GB/s. The Quadro M5000 has the bandwidth advantage, but the Tesla P4 compensates with higher compute throughput.

Clock speeds are relatively close. The Tesla P4's base clock is 886 MHz with a boost of 1114 MHz. The Quadro M5000's base clock is 861 MHz with a boost of 1038 MHz. The Tesla P4's higher boost clock contributes to its compute advantages, but the real differentiator is the architectural efficiency of Pascal over Maxwell 2.0.

Power and physical requirements differ substantially. The Tesla P4 has a 75 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has no display outputs. The Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP, is dual-slot, needs a single 6-pin power connector, and offers 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Tesla P4 is also much shorter at 168 mm (6.6 inches) compared to the Quadro M5000's 267 mm (10.5 inches). The Quadro M5000 has a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) while the Tesla P4 has no recorded height. Suggested PSU ratings reflect the power gap: 250 W for the Tesla P4, 450 W for the Quadro M5000.

Both cards support PCIe 3.0 x16 and share identical API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Tesla P4 belongs to the Tesla Pascal generation (Pxx), with Tesla Maxwell as its predecessor and Tesla Volta as its successor. The Quadro M5000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation (Mx000), with Quadro Kepler as its predecessor and Quadro Pascal as its successor.

Where Each One Wins

The Tesla P4 wins in raw compute workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 5.704 TFLOPS and texture rate of 178.2 GTexel/s indicate strong performance for general compute tasks, OpenCL workloads, and Vulkan-based applications. The benchmark data supports this: the Tesla P4 leads by 18.5% in OpenCL and 22.4% in Vulkan. Its higher shading unit count and better transistor density make it the clear choice for compute-heavy server workloads. The 75 W TDP and single-slot design, with no power connectors required, also make it easier to deploy in dense server environments with limited space and power budgets.

The Quadro M5000 wins in memory bandwidth and display connectivity. Its 211.6 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the Tesla P4's 192.3 GB/s by a meaningful margin, which can help in memory-bound workloads. More importantly, the Quadro M5000 has display outputs: 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for any workstation role that requires direct monitor connection. The Quadro M5000's dual-slot design and 150 W TDP also suggest it was built for traditional workstation chassis rather than dense server racks.

For users who need to drive multiple high-resolution displays, the Quadro M5000's four DisplayPort outputs are decisive. For users running headless compute tasks, the Tesla P4's higher compute throughput and lower power draw are decisive. The Quadro M5000's longer 267 mm length may also be an issue in compact chassis, while the Tesla P4's 168 mm length fits nearly anywhere.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation. For compute-focused deployments where display output is unnecessary, the NVIDIA Tesla P4 is the stronger card. It delivers 18.5% higher OpenCL scores and 22.4% higher Vulkan scores, has 34% more shading units, offers 34% higher texture rate, and achieves 34% higher FP32 throughput. It does all of this while consuming half the power (75 W versus 150 W) and occupying a single slot with no power connectors. The Tesla P4's average benchmark score of 37,628 places it among much more recent hardware, within 0.1% of the GeForce RTX 4070 and ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 56 by 0.3%.

The Quadro M5000 is the choice only when display outputs matter or when the higher memory bandwidth is critical. Its 211.6 GB/s bandwidth is 10% higher than the Tesla P4's 192.3 GB/s, and its four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus DVI make it functional as a workstation card. Its average score of 31,206 places it near the GRID M60-1Q, the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, and the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, all within 1.5% either direction. But in direct head-to-head comparison, the Tesla P4 wins both recorded benchmarks by wide margins.

Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both are end-of-life products. The Tesla P4 was released on September 12, 2016, while the Quadro M5000 was released on June 28, 2015. The Tesla P4 is the newer part by over a year, which partially explains its architectural advantages. For anyone building a compute node without display requirements, the Tesla P4 is the superior choice. For anyone needing a workstation card with multi-display support, the Quadro M5000 serves that specific role, despite its lower compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 wins both recorded benchmarks. It scores 34,947 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 29,481 for the Quadro M5000, and 40,309 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 32,931.

Q: What is the performance difference in percentage terms?

A: The Tesla P4 is 18.5% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL and 22.4% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Do these cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Can either card connect to displays?

A: Only the Quadro M5000 has display outputs: 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Tesla P4 has a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M5000 has higher memory bandwidth at 211.6 GB/s, compared to the Tesla P4's 192.3 GB/s. Both have 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla P4 | NVIDIA Quadro M5000 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 886 MHz | 861 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 211.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 160 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 71.30 GPixel/s | 66.43 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 178.2 GTexel/s | 132.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.704 TFLOPS | 4.252 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 89.12 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not recorded |

| TDP | 75 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

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

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not recorded | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | September 12, 2016 | June 28, 2015 |

| Predecessor | Tesla Maxwell | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Tesla Volta | Quadro Pascal |