NVIDIA Quadro M5000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and NVIDIA Quadro P2000 are both end-of-life professional mobile/compact GPUs, but they represent different design philosophies from different eras. The M5000M is a high-end Maxwell 2.0 part built for large mobile workstations, while the P2000 is a mid-range Pascal part designed for compact desktops and smaller laptops. Benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close contest, with the older, larger chip taking the majority of wins despite the newer architecture in the P2000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Quadro M5000M comes in the Passmark DirectX 11 test, where it scores 54 against the P2000’s 47, a substantial 14.9% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire benchmark suite and suggests that the M5000M’s raw geometry and fillrate capabilities translate into a significant edge in legacy DirectX 11 workloads. The M5000M also dominates compute-adjacent APIs like OpenCL, posting a score of 22920 versus 20125 for the P2000, a 13.9% lead that reflects its larger shading unit count and memory bandwidth.

In the Vulkan test, the M5000M again comes out ahead, scoring 24875 against the P2000’s 23566, a 5.6% margin. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern low-level API where the Pascal architecture’s improved scheduler might have been expected to shine, but the M5000M’s superior raw hardware resources win out. The DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 tests are closer, with the M5000M winning by 2.9% (35 vs 34) and 3.6% (29 vs 28) respectively. The Passmark G3D score, a general gaming-oriented metric, also favors the M5000M, but only by a slim 1.5% (7062 vs 6956).

The Quadro P2000, however, is not without its own victories. The most striking is in the Passmark G2D test, where it scores 626 against the M5000M’s 476, a massive 24% advantage. This indicates that the P2000 has significantly faster 2D desktop composition and windowing performance, likely due to its more modern display controller and driver optimizations. The P2000 also wins the Passmark GPU Compute test, scoring 2933 versus 2756, a 6% lead that is counterintuitive given the M5000M’s OpenCL win, but highlights that different compute workloads favor different architectural strengths.

The final P2000 win is in the legacy DirectX 9 test, where it scores 124 against the M5000M’s 119, a 4% margin. This suggests the Pascal architecture handles older fixed-function and early shader workloads more efficiently. Overall, the M5000M takes 6 of the 9 benchmark comparisons, but the P2000’s wins are often by larger margins in its favored tests, particularly the G2D test. The average benchmark score reflects this mixed picture: the M5000M averages 6481 points, placing it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the P2000 averages 6049 points, placing it in the 35th percentile.

The Verdict

The data does not point to a clean sweep for either card. The Quadro M5000M is the better choice for users whose primary workloads are 3D rendering, OpenCL compute, and modern graphics APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12. Its wins in OpenCL (13.9% ahead), Vulkan (5.6% ahead), and DirectX 11 (14.9% ahead) show that it has more headroom for demanding professional 3D tasks. The M5000M’s nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile and NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M, are within 0.2% and -0.2% of its average score, respectively, indicating it sits in a crowded performance tier.

The Quadro P2000, conversely, is the better option for users who prioritize 2D desktop responsiveness, general compute workloads as measured by Passmark, and legacy DirectX 9 applications. Its 24% lead in G2D is a decisive factor for any workflow that involves heavy UI interaction or 2D image manipulation. The P2000’s nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and RTX A400, are both 0.5% behind its average score, while the AMD Radeon 760M is 0.5% ahead and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is 0.8% ahead, showing it is also in a tightly contested performance band.

In summary, the M5000M is the stronger 3D performer, winning the G3D test (1.5% ahead) and the majority of API-specific tests. The P2000 is the stronger 2D and general compute performer, with its G2D win being the single largest margin in the comparison. Users needing maximum 3D throughput should select the M5000M; users needing a snappy desktop experience and better legacy API performance should select the P2000.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different architectures and process nodes. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip based on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a newer 16 nm process, also at TSMC. This node shrink allowed the P2000 to achieve higher transistor density: 22.0 million transistors per square millimeter versus 13.1 million for the M5000M. However, the M5000M has a larger die at 398 mm² and more total transistors at 5,200 million, compared to the P2000’s 200 mm² die and 4,400 million transistors.

The M5000M is a physically larger chip with substantially more execution resources. It has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The P2000, by contrast, has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. This difference in resource allocation explains the M5000M’s higher theoretical peak pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s versus 59.20 GPixel/s for the P2000, and its higher texture rate of 100.9 GTexel/s versus 94.72 GTexel/s. The M5000M also has a higher FP32 throughput at 3.229 TFLOPS compared to the P2000’s 3.031 TFLOPS. The P2000 does have a small FP16 capability at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the M5000M has no listed FP16 support.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The P2000 runs at a base clock of 1076 MHz and boosts to 1480 MHz, significantly higher than the M5000M’s 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. This higher clock speed helps the P2000 close the performance gap despite having fewer cores. The M5000M is a discrete MXM module, while the P2000 is a single-slot PCIe card with a 196 mm length and 111 mm height. The P2000 also has a lower TDP of 75 W compared to the M5000M’s 100 W, and it suggests a 250 W power supply, whereas the M5000M lists none.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a narrower 160-bit bus, delivering 140.2 GB/s. The M5000M’s memory runs at an effective 5 Gbps, while the P2000’s runs faster at 7 Gbps effective, but the wider bus of the M5000M still yields higher total bandwidth. The P2000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the M5000M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, reflecting its mobile workstation heritage. Display outputs also differ: the M5000M is "Portable Device Dependent," meaning outputs vary by laptop, while the P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

The form factors are the most obvious physical difference. The M5000M is an MXM Module, designed to be replaceable inside a laptop. The P2000 is a Single-slot card, designed for desktop installation. Neither card requires external power connectors. The P2000 has a defined length of 196 mm (7.7 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the M5000M has no listed dimensions. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature support is identical. The M5000M was released earlier, on 2015-08-17, while the P2000 came later on 2017-02-05. The M5000M’s predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M; the P2000’s predecessor is the Quadro Maxwell and its successor is the Quadro Volta.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw 3D performance in the benchmark data?

A: The Quadro M5000M wins the Passmark G3D test with a score of 7062 against the P2000’s 6956, a 1.5% margin. It also wins the DirectX 11 test by 14.9% (54 vs 47) and the Vulkan test by 5.6% (24875 vs 23566).

Q: Is the Quadro P2000 better at any benchmark?

A: Yes, the P2000 wins the Passmark G2D test by a large 24% margin (626 vs 476), the GPU Compute test by 6% (2933 vs 2756), and the DirectX 9 test by 4% (124 vs 119).

Q: How much faster is the M5000M in OpenCL compute?

A: The M5000M scores 22920 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 13.9% higher than the P2000’s score of 20125.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus. The M5000M also has higher memory bandwidth at 160.4 GB/s versus 140.2 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a lower power consumption rating?

A: The P2000 has a lower TDP of 75 W compared to the M5000M’s 100 W. The P2000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M5000M does not list one.

Q: Do the two cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 according to the specification data.