NVIDIA Quadro P5000 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two workstation cards is remarkably lopsided, yet the two wins for the NVIDIA T600 are not trivial. The Quadro P5000 takes seven of nine head-to-head tests, dominating in raw compute and legacy DirectX workloads. The T600, however, claims victory in Vulkan and 2D graphics, which points to a fundamental difference in workload optimization rather than a simple generational superiority.

For compute-heavy tasks, the P5000 is the clear choice. Its passmark_gpu_compute score of 6508 crushes the T600's 2402, a 170.9% advantage that dwarfs every other delta in the comparison. Similarly, the passmark_g3d score of 12634 versus 6479 represents a 95% lead, indicating that the older Pascal card simply has more raw shading power available. The P5000 also wins every DirectX test, from DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, with deltas ranging from 49.1% to 140.6%.

The T600's wins are more specialized. Its geekbench_vulkan score of 25580 versus 6342 is a 75.2% advantage, suggesting the Turing architecture's Vulkan driver path is significantly more efficient. The passmark_g2d result also favors the T600, 756 to 674, a 10.8% edge in 2D rasterization. These wins hint at a card that handles modern API overhead and desktop composition tasks more gracefully, even with far fewer resources.

The data implies a split personality: the P5000 is a brute-force compute engine, while the T600 is a lean, modern-API specialist. For users whose workflows lean on OpenCL, DirectX, or general 3D throughput, the P5000 wins outright. For Vulkan-centric applications or 2D-heavy multi-monitor setups, the T600 punches above its weight.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is substantial, spanning two distinct NVIDIA generations. The Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 16 nm process. The T600 employs the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a smaller 12 nm node. Both come from TSMC, but the transistor counts tell different stories: the P5000 packs 7,200 million transistors across a 314 mm² die, while the T600 fits 4,700 million transistors into 200 mm².

Transistor density is nearly identical, 22.9M per mm² for the P5000 versus 23.5M per mm² for the T600, which suggests the process shrink mainly enabled a smaller, more power-efficient package rather than a density revolution. The real divergence is in execution resources. The P5000 fields 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The T600 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is a 4:1 ratio in shading units and TMUs, and 2:1 in ROPs.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The P5000 runs a base clock of 1607 MHz with a boost of 1733 MHz. The T600 starts much lower at 735 MHz but boosts to 1335 MHz. Memory configurations diverge too: the P5000 uses 16 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 288.5 GB/s bandwidth, while the T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s. Effective memory speed favors the T600 at 10 Gbps versus 9 Gbps, but the P5000's wider bus more than compensates.

Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores, so that is not a differentiator. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T600 has a notable FP16 advantage, delivering 3.418 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the P5000 manages only 138.6 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. FP32 performance strongly favors the P5000 at 8.873 TFLOPS versus 1.709 TFLOPS.

Power and physical design also separate them. The P5000 draws 180 W, requires a dual-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The T600 sips 40 W, fits a single slot, needs no power connectors, and suggests a 200 W PSU. The P5000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall; the T600's dimensions are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the T600 has 4 GB of GDDR6. The P5000 also has a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, yielding 288.5 GB/s bandwidth compared to 160.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the T600 outperform the P5000 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in two recorded tests. The T600 wins geekbench_vulkan with 25580 versus 6342, a 75.2% edge, and passmark_g2d with 756 versus 674, a 10.8% advantage.

Q: How large is the compute performance gap?

A: The P5000 leads passmark_gpu_compute by 170.9%, scoring 6508 versus 2402. In FP32 peak throughput, the P5000 reaches 8.873 TFLOPS compared to the T600's 1.709 TFLOPS.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The P5000 was released in September 2016, and the T600 in April 2021.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The P5000 has a 180 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler and one 8-pin power connector, and recommends a 450 W PSU. The T600 has a 40 W TDP, fits in a single slot, needs no power connectors, and recommends a 200 W PSU.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing?

A: No. Both the P5000 and T600 have no RT cores or tensor cores recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The process node shifts from 16 nm on the P5000 to 12 nm on the T600. Transistor count drops from 7,200 million to 4,700 million, and die size shrinks from 314 mm² to 200 mm². Transistor density is close, 22.9M per mm² versus 23.5M per mm².

Clocks diverge sharply. The P5000 has a 1607 MHz base and 1733 MHz boost; the T600 has a 735 MHz base and 1335 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the P5000 at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) and the T600 at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 16 GB GDDR5X versus 4 GB GDDR6, with bus widths of 256-bit versus 128-bit and bandwidth of 288.5 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

Execution resources favor the P5000: 2560 shading units versus 640, 160 TMUs versus 40, and 64 ROPs versus 32. Pixel rate is 110.9 GPixel/s versus 42.72 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 277.3 GTexel/s versus 53.40 GTexel/s. FP32 is 8.873 TFLOPS versus 1.709 TFLOPS. FP16 flips in favor of the T600, 3.418 TFLOPS versus 138.6 GFLOPS, due to the 2:1 ratio on Turing versus 1:64 on Pascal.

Power and physical specs differ substantially: 180 W versus 40 W TDP, dual-slot versus single-slot, 1x 8-pin versus no power connector, and 450 W versus 200 W suggested PSU. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the P5000, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the T600. The P5000 has recorded dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height; the T600 has none. The P5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD; the T600 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the P5000 comes in passmark_gpu_compute, where it scores 6508 against 2402, a 170.9% delta. This is the single most decisive result in the comparison and reflects the massive difference in shading resources and FP32 throughput. The passmark_directx_10 test shows a 140.6% lead, 77 to 32, and passmark_directx_11 shows 108.2%, 102 to 49. The passmark_g3d test, a general 3D performance indicator, gives the P5000 a 95% advantage at 12634 versus 6479.

The geekbench_opencl result favors the P5000 by 88.4%, 52509 versus 27875, which aligns with the compute-oriented nature of OpenCL workloads. The passmark_directx_12 test shows a 76% lead, 44 to 25, and passmark_directx_9 shows a 49.1% edge, 170 to 114. These DirectX results span the oldest and newest API versions, suggesting the P5000's raw throughput advantage is not tied to a specific DX generation.

The T600's wins are significant in their own way. The geekbench_vulkan score of 25580 versus 6342 is a 75.2% margin, which is striking given the P5000's overall hardware superiority. This suggests the Turing architecture's Vulkan implementation is far more efficient, possibly due to better command processing or driver optimization. The passmark_g2d result, 756 versus 674, is a smaller 10.8% win, but it indicates the T600 handles 2D workloads with less overhead.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce the hierarchy: the P5000 sits at 8039, while the T600 sits at 7035. Percentile rankings are close, 41st for the P5000 versus 39th for the T600, which places both in the lower-middle range of all GPUs. The nearest rivals for the P5000 include the GeForce GTX 880M at 8040 (0% delta) and the GTX 650 Ti at 8053 (-0.2%). The T600's nearest rivals include the GTX 680M at 7023 (0.2%), the Radeon R5 M240 at 6975 (0.9%), and the GTX 970 at 7157 (-1.7%).

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Quadro P5000 is the stronger card for compute-heavy and DirectX-based workloads, while the T600 is a specialized option for Vulkan and 2D tasks. The P5000 wins seven of nine head-to-head benchmarks, including every DirectX test and the major 3D and compute metrics. Its 170.9% lead in GPU compute and 95% lead in 3D performance make it the obvious choice for rendering, simulation, or any task that leverages raw shading power.

The T600 should not be dismissed. Its 75.2% Vulkan advantage suggests that applications built on Vulkan will run disproportionately better on the Turing card, despite its smaller resource pool. The 2D win, while modest at 10.8%, indicates better desktop and compositing performance. For users running Vulkan-based software or multi-monitor 2D setups, the T600's efficiency and single-slot, no-connector design offer practical benefits.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The T600's 40 W TDP versus the P5000's 180 W means significantly lower system power draw and heat output, with no external power connector required. The P5000 demands a dual-slot cooler, an 8-pin connector, and a 450 W PSU recommendation. For dense workstation environments or systems with limited power budgets, the T600's efficiency is compelling.

Memory capacity favors the P5000 decisively: 16 GB versus 4 GB. Workloads that require large datasets in VRAM will quickly exhaust the T600. The bandwidth gap, 288.5 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s, compounds this limitation. The P5000 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the T600 has no recorded price.

The final recommendation depends on workload profile. Compute, DirectX, large VRAM datasets, and raw 3D throughput point squarely to the Quadro P5000. Vulkan-centric applications, 2D-heavy workflows, low-power environments, and space-constrained chassis point to the T600. The benchmark data does not support a universal winner, but for most traditional workstation tasks, the P5000's seven wins make it the safer default choice.