NVIDIA Quadro M5000M vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA T600 and the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M reveals a fascinating split: the newer Turing-based card wins the modern API compute tests, while the older Maxwell-based card dominates the legacy DirectX suites and raw rasterization. The data shows a clear generational divide in where each GPU excels.

The T600’s most decisive victory comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where it scores 27,875 against the M5000M’s 22,920 — a commanding 21.6% advantage. This is a substantial margin that suggests the T600’s Turing architecture is significantly more efficient at general-purpose compute workloads. The gap narrows considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, with the T600 scoring 25,580 versus 24,875, a modest 2.8% lead. This closer margin implies that when both GPUs are pushed through a modern graphics API, the M5000M’s larger physical resources (more shading units, more TMUs) partially compensate for its older architecture.

The M5000M fights back decisively in the legacy DirectX benchmarks. It wins Passmark DirectX 10 by 8.6%, scoring 35 versus 32. The DirectX 11 test shows a similar pattern: 54 versus 49, a 9.3% edge. The DirectX 12 result is the M5000M’s strongest legacy win at 13.8%, with a score of 29 against 25. Even the aging DirectX 9 test goes to the M5000M, 119 versus 114, a 4.2% margin. These results indicate that the M5000M’s raw fillrate and shader throughput translate directly into better performance in older, less optimized rendering paths.

In the Passmark G3D suite, the M5000M posts 7,062 against 6,479, an 8.3% victory. This is the most representative overall gaming-style benchmark, and it shows the M5000M’s superiority in traditional 3D rasterization. The GPU compute test reinforces this trend, with the M5000M scoring 2,756 versus 2,402, a 12.8% advantage. However, the T600 completely reverses the script in the Passmark G2D test, scoring 756 versus 476 — a massive 58.8% lead. This 2D performance gap is extraordinary and likely reflects the T600’s newer display engine and memory architecture, which handle desktop composition and 2D operations far more efficiently.

The head-to-head tally favors the M5000M at 6 wins against 3. However, the nature of those wins matters. The M5000M’s victories are generally in older or traditional workloads, while the T600 wins the two most forward-looking benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) plus the 2D test. The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story: the T600 averages 7,035, while the M5000M averages 6,481. This is a counterintuitive result — the card that loses the majority of head-to-head tests still has the higher average score. The explanation lies in the magnitude of the T600’s OpenCL and G2D wins, which are large enough to pull its average above the M5000M’s despite losing six of nine tests. The T600 also sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the M5000M’s 37th.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL compute benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA T600 wins decisively, scoring 27,875 against the Quadro M5000M’s 22,920, a 21.6% advantage.

Q: Is the Quadro M5000M better at DirectX 11 than the T600?

A: Yes, the M5000M scores 54 in Passmark DirectX 11 compared to the T600’s 49, giving it a 9.3% lead.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Passmark G3D test?

A: The M5000M wins with a score of 7,062 against 6,479, an 8.3% margin in favor of the older card.

Q: What is the T600’s best benchmark result relative to the M5000M?

A: The T600’s largest win is in Passmark G2D, where it scores 756 versus 476, a 58.8% advantage — its most dominant result in any test.

Q: Does the newer T600 have a higher average benchmark score than the M5000M?

A: Yes, the T600 averages 7,035 across its benchmark suite, while the M5000M averages 6,481, despite the M5000M winning more individual head-to-head tests.

Q: Which card ranks higher in percentile against all GPUs?

A: The T600 ranks at the 39th percentile, while the M5000M ranks at the 37th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by two architecture generations. The T600 uses the TU117 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process. The M5000M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process. This process difference is stark: the T600 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The M5000M contains 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, giving it a density of just 13.1M per mm². The T600 is nearly twice as dense, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing node.

The shading resources also diverge significantly. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The M5000M more than doubles the shading units at 1,536, with 96 TMUs and 64 ROPs. This massive difference in raw execution resources explains why the M5000M wins most rasterization tests — it simply has more hardware to throw at traditional graphics workloads. However, the T600 compensates with higher clock efficiency in certain workloads. The T600 boosts to 1,335 MHz, while the M5000M boosts to 1,051 MHz. The base clocks are 735 MHz and 962 MHz respectively.

Memory configurations also tell a story of generational change. The T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.4 GB/s. The bandwidth is essentially identical despite the different memory types and bus widths — the GDDR6’s 10 Gbps effective data rate on the T600 compensates for its narrower bus, while the M5000M’s GDDR5 runs at 5 Gbps effective across double the bus width. This near-parity in bandwidth means memory throughput is not a differentiator in the benchmark results.

Compute capabilities also differ. The T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 3.418 TFLOPS of FP16 (with a 2:1 ratio). The M5000M offers 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 but no FP16 support. The pixel rate favors the M5000M at 67.26 GPixel/s versus 42.72 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is also higher at 100.9 GTexel/s versus 53.40 GTexel/s. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals clear divergences in nearly every major category. The T600 uses the TU117 chip on Turing architecture (12 nm process), while the M5000M uses GM204 on Maxwell 2.0 (28 nm). Transistor counts differ: 4,700 million versus 5,200 million, with die sizes of 200 mm² and 398 mm² respectively.

Clock speeds favor the T600 on boost (1,335 MHz versus 1,051 MHz) but the M5000M on base (962 MHz versus 735 MHz). Memory differs in size (4 GB versus 8 GB), type (GDDR6 versus GDDR5), and bus width (128-bit versus 256-bit), though bandwidth is nearly identical at 160.0 GB/s and 160.4 GB/s. The T600’s memory runs at 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective), while the M5000M’s runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

The execution resources heavily favor the M5000M: 1,536 shading units versus 640, 96 TMUs versus 40, and 64 ROPs versus 32. This translates to higher pixel and texture rates for the M5000M (67.26 GPixel/s and 100.9 GTexel/s versus 42.72 GPixel/s and 53.40 GTexel/s). FP32 performance also favors the M5000M at 3.229 TFLOPS versus 1.709 TFLOPS, though the T600 adds FP16 capability at 3.418 TFLOPS that the M5000M lacks entirely.

Power and physical form factors differ substantially. The T600 draws 40 W and is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The M5000M draws 100 W and uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface as an MXM Module, with no suggested PSU listed. Display outputs also differ: the T600 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M5000M’s outputs are portable device dependent. The T600 was released later (2021-04-11 versus 2015-08-17), and both are end-of-life. The T600’s generation is Quadro Turing (Tx000) with Quadro Volta as predecessor and Workstation Ampere as successor. The M5000M is Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) with Quadro Kepler-M and Quadro Pascal-M as predecessor and successor.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. For users prioritizing modern compute workloads, particularly OpenCL and Vulkan, the T600 is the superior choice — its 21.6% OpenCL lead and 2.8% Vulkan edge demonstrate that the Turing architecture handles contemporary APIs more efficiently. The T600 also completely dominates 2D performance with a 58.8% G2D advantage, making it the better option for desktop productivity and non-3D applications.

The M5000M is the stronger pick for traditional 3D rasterization and legacy DirectX workloads. It wins all four DirectX tests (9 through 12) with margins ranging from 4.2% to 13.8%, and it also wins the G3D test by 8.3% and GPU compute by 12.8%. Its double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs give it raw power that older software can fully exploit. The M5000M’s 8 GB memory capacity also doubles the T600’s 4 GB, which may matter for large datasets even though the bandwidth is effectively equal.

The higher average benchmark score of the T600 (7,035 versus 6,481) and its better percentile ranking (39th versus 37th) suggest that for a mixed workload, the T600 might be marginally more balanced overall. However, the M5000M wins more individual tests, meaning its strengths are concentrated where many traditional workstation applications still operate.

Where Each One Wins

The T600 wins in scenarios that stress modern compute APIs and 2D throughput. Its 21.6% OpenCL advantage makes it the choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications, while its 58.8% G2D lead makes it ideal for multi-monitor desktop environments, CAD UI rendering, and any workflow that involves heavy 2D composition. The Vulkan win, though narrow at 2.8%, positions the T600 as the better option for Vulkan-based renderers and emerging graphics workloads. Its 40 W power draw also makes it suitable for compact or power-constrained systems, particularly given its single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors.

The M5000M wins in legacy DirectX environments and raw rasterization. Its consistent wins across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 (with margins of 4.2%, 8.6%, 9.3%, and 13.8% respectively) make it the stronger choice for older CAD, 3D modeling, and visualization software that relies on these APIs. Its 8.3% G3D win indicates better overall 3D performance in traditional rendering paths, and its 12.8% GPU compute win suggests it handles compute shaders more effectively in certain contexts. The 100 W TDP and MXM form factor position it for larger mobile workstations where power is less constrained and the 8 GB memory capacity is more valuable.

The data ultimately suggests that the choice depends on software environment. Users running modern, well-optimized applications will see better results with the T600, particularly in compute-heavy tasks. Users locked into legacy DirectX pipelines or requiring maximum raw rasterization throughput will find the M5000M delivers better performance, despite its age and lower overall benchmark average.