GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA TITAN RTX and NVIDIA Quadro M5000 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, separated by architecture, process technology, and intended workload. The data shows a TITAN RTX average benchmark score of 31,676 against the Quadro M5000’s 31,206, a difference of 1.5% in favor of the TITAN RTX. Both cards sit at the 76th percentile among all GPUs, indicating comparable overall standing, yet their underlying specifications and benchmark results reveal starkly different strengths.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA TITAN RTX in OpenCL performance?

A: The TITAN RTX scores 144,858 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro M5000 scores 29,481. This is a 391.4% advantage for the TITAN RTX, making it over four times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 win in any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available, the TITAN RTX wins both. The Quadro M5000 has zero wins, while the TITAN RTX has two wins, with the Vulkan test showing a 313.2% gap.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 211.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: No. The TITAN RTX uses the Turing architecture (TU102 chip), while the Quadro M5000 uses Maxwell 2.0 (GM204 chip). This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy and feature support.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The TITAN RTX packs 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, while the Quadro M5000 has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The TITAN RTX’s density is 24.7M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The TITAN RTX has a 280 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with two 8-pin connectors. The Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP, needs only a 450 W PSU, and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The TITAN RTX is built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, featuring the TU102 chip with 18,600 million transistors across a 754 mm² die. This Turing architecture introduces dedicated RT cores (72) and Tensor cores (576), which are entirely absent from the Quadro M5000. The Quadro uses a 28 nm process with the GM204 chip, containing 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The transistor density difference is substantial: 24.7M per mm² for the TITAN RTX versus 13.1M for the Quadro M5000.

The compute capabilities diverge sharply. The TITAN RTX delivers 16.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 32.62 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 rate), while the Quadro M5000 offers 4.252 TFLOPS FP32 and has no listed FP16 capability. The TITAN RTX also has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, compared to 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the Quadro. Pixel rate and texture rate follow suit: the TITAN RTX achieves 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s, versus 66.43 GPixel/s and 132.9 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The TITAN RTX uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 211.6 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ, with the TITAN RTX running at 1350 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). The DirectX support also differs: the TITAN RTX supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports 12 (12_1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks show a dominant performance gap. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN RTX scores 144,858 versus the Quadro M5000’s 29,481, a delta of 391.4%. This is not a marginal improvement but a complete generational leap in raw compute throughput. The TITAN RTX’s FP32 output of 16.31 TFLOPS versus 4.252 TFLOPS explains this magnitude, as does the massive difference in memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the TITAN RTX scores 136,073 versus 32,931 for the Quadro, a 313.2% advantage. Vulkan performance benefits from the TITAN RTX’s newer architecture and higher shading unit count, but the gap is slightly smaller than OpenCL, suggesting the Quadro’s Maxwell architecture handles graphics-oriented workloads relatively better than pure compute. Still, the TITAN RTX wins decisively in both tests.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The TITAN RTX averages 31,676 across all tests, while the Quadro M5000 averages 31,206. This 1.5% difference is narrow, but it reflects the Quadro’s limited benchmark set (only OpenCL and Vulkan), which does not capture the TITAN RTX’s full range of capabilities. In the data available, the TITAN RTX wins all head-to-head comparisons, with zero wins for the Quadro M5000.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 12 nm versus 28 nm. Transistors: 18,600 million versus 5,200 million. Die size: 754 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density: 24.7M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm². Base clock: 1350 MHz versus 861 MHz. Boost clock: 1770 MHz versus 1038 MHz. Memory clock: 1750 MHz versus 1653 MHz. Memory size: 24 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bus width: 384-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth: 672.0 GB/s versus 211.6 GB/s.

Compute units also diverge: shading units 4608 versus 2048, TMUs 288 versus 128, ROPs 96 versus 64. The TITAN RTX has 72 RT cores and 576 Tensor cores; the Quadro has none. Pixel rate: 169.9 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 509.8 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s. FP32: 16.31 TFLOPS versus 4.252 TFLOPS. FP16: 32.62 TFLOPS versus null. TDP: 280 W versus 150 W. Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 450 W. Display outputs: the TITAN RTX has 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C; the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Height differs slightly: 116 mm versus 111 mm, while length is identical at 267 mm.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. The TITAN RTX offers 391.4% higher OpenCL performance and 313.2% higher Vulkan performance than the Quadro M5000. Its 24 GB GDDR6 memory with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth provides over three times the capacity and bandwidth of the Quadro’s 8 GB GDDR5. The TITAN RTX also brings RT cores and Tensor cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely, making the TITAN RTX the only option for ray tracing or AI-accelerated tasks.

The Quadro M5000’s only advantage is power efficiency. At 150 W TDP versus 280 W, it consumes nearly half the power. It also requires a smaller PSU (450 W versus 600 W) and a single 6-pin connector instead of two 8-pin connectors. For systems with strict power budgets or older PSUs, the Quadro is the more practical choice. However, in raw performance, the Quadro loses every benchmark. Its FP32 output of 4.252 TFLOPS is 74% lower than the TITAN RTX’s 16.31 TFLOPS. The Quadro has no FP16 support, no RT cores, and no Tensor cores, limiting its applicability to traditional graphics and basic compute.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN RTX wins in every performance category measured. It dominates compute benchmarks, with the OpenCL score being nearly five times higher. It wins in memory-bound workloads due to 672.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 211.6 GB/s. It wins in any task leveraging FP16, RT cores, or Tensor cores, as the Quadro has none of these features. The TITAN RTX’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support (12_2) also surpasses the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1), making it more future-proof for modern graphics APIs.

The Quadro M5000 wins only in power efficiency and installation flexibility. Its 150 W TDP means lower heat output and less strain on the system’s power delivery. Its single 6-pin connector and 450 W PSU requirement allow it to be installed in systems that cannot support the TITAN RTX’s 280 W draw and dual 8-pin connectors. The Quadro’s DVI output may also be relevant for legacy display setups, though the TITAN RTX’s USB Type-C and newer DisplayPort 1.4a outputs offer more modern connectivity.

For users prioritizing raw performance, feature set, or memory capacity, the TITAN RTX is the only logical choice from this data. For users with constrained power or legacy PSUs, the Quadro M5000 remains a viable option, but it sacrifices 391.4% of OpenCL performance to do so. The average benchmark scores, separated by just 1.5%, are misleading; the head-to-head results show the TITAN RTX is in a different performance class entirely.