NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M dominates the single head-to-head benchmark available, delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,920 against the GeForce GT 1010’s 6,698 — a 70.8% advantage for the Quadro. That margin is not incremental; it is a generational chasm in raw compute throughput. The GT 1010, despite launching nearly six years later, lands at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile — practically identical overall standing, yet achieved through vastly different architectural approaches. The data paints a clear picture: the Quadro M5000M is the performance king, while the GT 1010 is a low-power, entry-level part that trades compute for efficiency and a modern feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is lopsided. The Quadro M5000M scores 22,920, nearly 3.4 times the GT 1010’s 6,698. The delta of -70.8% (expressed from the GT 1010’s perspective) underscores how far behind the smaller card sits. In practical terms, OpenCL workloads — which span physics simulation, image processing, and general-purpose GPU compute — will complete roughly three times faster on the Quadro.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The GT 1010’s closest competitors, such as the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764) and the AMD FirePro M5100 (6,830), are within 1-2% of its score — meaning the GT 1010 is squarely in the lower-midrange of mobile and entry desktop GPUs. The Quadro M5000M, by contrast, aligns with the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476) in average benchmark score, but that average is dragged down by its weaker DirectX and 2D tests; its raw OpenCL output is far higher. The Quadro’s nearest rivals in average score, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513) and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554), are all within 1.1% of its aggregate — but none of them approach its OpenCL peak.

Benchmark results indicate that the Quadro M5000M wins the only head-to-head test decisively. The GT 1010 has zero wins in the head-to-head dataset. There is no scenario in the provided data where the GT 1010 outperforms the Quadro in raw compute. The gap is not a matter of tuning or driver maturity; it is a direct consequence of hardware scale — more shading units, more memory bandwidth, and a wider bus.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins in every compute-centric scenario. Its 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs dwarf the GT 1010’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. For pixel throughput, the Quadro hits 67.26 GPixel/s versus the GT 1010’s 11.74 GPixel/s — a 5.7x advantage. Texture fill rates tell a similar story: 100.9 GTexel/s against 23.49 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 751.6 GFLOPS — the Quadro is 4.3x faster. Any workload that stresses raw arithmetic, rasterization, or memory bandwidth will favor the Quadro overwhelmingly.

The GT 1010, however, has its own niche: power efficiency and physical footprint. With a 30 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 100 W, the GT 1010 draws less than a third of the power. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, whereas the Quadro is an MXM module designed for portable devices — a form factor that trades repairability for integration. The GT 1010’s 14 nm Samsung process node, compared to the Quadro’s 28 nm TSMC node, gives it a transistor density of 24.3M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm² — meaning the GT 1010 packs more transistors per area despite having far fewer total transistors (1,800 million vs 5,200 million). For systems where power delivery is constrained, or where a passive, low-profile card is required, the GT 1010 is the practical choice.

Memory bandwidth is another clear separator. The Quadro’s 160.4 GB/s, fed by a 256-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR5, is 3.3x the GT 1010’s 48.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 2 GB. For large datasets, texture-heavy scenes, or multi-monitor setups, the Quadro’s memory subsystem is far more capable. The GT 1010’s 2 GB frame buffer will hit capacity limits in modern workloads, while the Quadro’s 8 GB provides headroom for professional applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The Quadro M5000M is decisively faster, scoring 22,920 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GT 1010’s 6,698 — a 70.8% lead.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The GT 1010 has an average benchmark score of 6,698, while the Quadro M5000M averages 6,481. Despite the Quadro’s massive OpenCL win, its average is pulled down by low scores in other tests, such as Passmark DirectX 9 (119) and DirectX 12 (29).

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card?

A: The GT 1010’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, -1% delta), while the Quadro M5000M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, 0.1% delta).

Q: Does either card support modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity is not a differentiator.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The Quadro M5000M achieves 67.26 GPixel/s and 100.9 GTexel/s, compared to the GT 1010’s 11.74 GPixel/s and 23.49 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GT 1010 is rated at 30 W TDP, while the Quadro M5000M is rated at 100 W TDP — the GT 1010 uses 70% less power.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GT 1010 | Quadro M5000M |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 1,800 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.3M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1228 MHz | 962 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 1051 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 16 | 96 |

| ROPs | 8 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.74 GPixel/s | 67.26 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.49 GTexel/s | 100.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 751.6 GFLOPS | 3.229 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions (Length) | 147 mm (5.8 inches) | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2021-01-12 | 2015-08-17 |

Architecture Differences

The GT 1010 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, using the GP108 chip manufactured on Samsung’s 14 nm process. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a tiny 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3M / mm² — a figure that reflects the efficiency of a modern, small-node design. Pascal brings a mature feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the GT 1010 has no ray tracing or tensor cores.

The Quadro M5000M is a Maxwell 2.0 part, built on the GM204 chip at TSMC’s 28 nm node. Its 5,200 million transistors occupy a much larger 398 mm² die, yielding a lower transistor density of 13.1M / mm². Maxwell 2.0 supports the same API suite — DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — so there is no API-level advantage for either card. Both also lack dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores.

The fundamental architectural difference lies in scale versus efficiency. The Quadro’s Maxwell design is older and less dense, but it compensates with sheer silicon area: 6x the shading units, 6x the TMUs, and 8x the ROPs. The GT 1010’s Pascal design is more modern per square millimeter, but its tiny die and narrow memory interface limit its throughput. The GT 1010 also lacks the Quadro’s professional-grade 8 GB frame buffer, which is critical for large compute or visualization tasks. In essence, the Quadro M5000M is a high-end mobile workstation GPU from 2015, while the GT 1010 is a low-end desktop card from 2021 — the release gap is visible in every specification, yet the Quadro’s larger hardware budget still wins on raw performance.