GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M represent two distinct eras of professional mobile graphics. The data shows a generational chasm between the Turing-based RTX 5000 and the Maxwell-based M4000M, with the former delivering overwhelming performance advantages across every measurable benchmark. While both cards are end-of-life products, their architectural differences and benchmark scores paint a clear picture of a complete performance class separation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is stark, with the RTX 5000 winning both recorded tests by massive margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 5000 scores 78,999 points against the M4000M’s 19,989 points, yielding a delta of 295.2% in favor of the newer card. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a near quadrupling of compute throughput. The Vulkan results are even more lopsided, with the RTX 5000 achieving 92,309 points versus the M4000M’s 20,971 points, a 340.2% advantage.

These deltas are consistent with the raw specification differences between the two chips. The RTX 5000’s FP32 throughput is listed at 11.15 TFLOPS, while the M4000M manages 2.593 TFLOPS, a 4.3x gap that aligns with the OpenCL score difference. The texture rate tells a similar story: 348.5 GTexel/s for the RTX 5000 versus 81.04 GTexel/s for the M4000M. Even the pixel rate, where the M4000M’s 64 ROPs match the RTX 5000’s 64 ROPs, shows a significant gap: 116.2 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s, owing to the RTX 5000’s higher clock speeds.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX 5000’s average benchmark score is 21,629, placing it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, which scores 21,856, a delta of -1% indicating the RTX 5000 is essentially tied with that mainstream card. The M4000M, by contrast, has an average score of 20,480, sitting in the 65th percentile, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20,534 (a -0.3% delta). This means the M4000M’s average score is only about 5% lower than the RTX 5000’s average, despite the individual test deltas being much larger. This apparent discrepancy is explained by the limited benchmark overlap: the M4000M only has two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the RTX 5000 has nine, including Passmark tests where it scores relatively low (e.g., 113 in DirectX 10, 59 in DirectX 12). The RTX 5000’s Passmark G3D score of 15,616 is solid, but its average is dragged down by these legacy DirectX tests.

The two cards’ percentile rankings are close (67th vs 65th), but this masks the fact that the RTX 5000’s compute-heavy workloads (OpenCL, Vulkan, GPU Compute) are where it dominates. The M4000M’s 65th percentile, given its 2015 release date, suggests it remains competitive against a broad field of modern cards in aggregate scoring, but the head-to-head data leaves no doubt about which card is superior in absolute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins decisively with a score of 78,999 versus the M4000M’s 19,989, representing a 295.2% advantage. This reflects the RTX 5000’s 11.15 TFLOPS FP32 throughput against the M4000M’s 2.593 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan graphics performance?

A: The RTX 5000 scores 92,309 points in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to the M4000M’s 20,971 points. The delta is 340.2%, the largest margin between the two in any benchmark.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 5000 has an average benchmark score of 21,629, while the M4000M averages 20,480. This is a difference of 1,149 points, or approximately 5.6% in favor of the RTX 5000.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M have a production status of "End-of-life," according to the data.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RTX 5000 ranks in the 67th percentile, while the M4000M ranks in the 65th percentile. This is a narrow gap, but the RTX 5000 holds the higher position.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each card have in head-to-head testing?

A: The RTX 5000 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, while the M4000M wins 0. The only tests available for direct comparison are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior card in every measurable way. If the workload involves OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the RTX 5000 delivers 295% to 340% more performance than the M4000M. The RTX 5000’s 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 3072 shading units dwarf the M4000M’s 4 GB of GDDR5, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 1280 shading units. For professionals running modern compute-heavy applications, the RTX 5000 is the only rational choice between these two.

However, the M4000M is not without a niche. Its 100 W TDP and MXM Module form factor make it a lower-power, mobile-oriented solution, whereas the RTX 5000 is a dual-slot card requiring a 550 W power supply and 230 W TDP. The M4000M’s 65th percentile ranking, despite being a 2015-era product, indicates it still holds up reasonably well in aggregate against a wide field. For legacy applications that do not use Vulkan or OpenCL, or for systems constrained by power and space, the M4000M remains functional. But for any performance-critical task, the RTX 5000 is overwhelmingly superior.

The decision hinges on the workload. If the application leverages modern APIs and needs massive compute throughput, the RTX 5000 is the clear winner. If the system requires a low-power MXM module and the software is undemanding, the M4000M can suffice, but the benchmark data shows it is outclassed by a factor of four in compute tests. The RTX 5000 also benefits from a higher transistor count (13,600 million vs 5,200 million), a larger die (545 mm² vs 398 mm²), and a newer 12 nm process versus 28 nm. These are not subtle differences; they represent a full architectural generation leap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm process, while the M4000M uses the GM204 chip on a 28 nm process. Transistor counts are 13,600 million versus 5,200 million, with die sizes of 545 mm² and 398 mm² respectively. Transistor density is 25.0M per mm² for the RTX 5000 and 13.1M per mm² for the M4000M.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the RTX 5000 runs at a base of 1620 MHz and a boost of 1815 MHz, while the M4000M runs at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. Memory configurations are completely different: the RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 256-bit bus.

Compute resources are also disparate: the RTX 5000 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the M4000M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 5000 adds 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, which the M4000M lacks entirely. Pixel rates are 116.2 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 348.5 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 11.15 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS, and the RTX 5000 also lists FP16 at 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1), which the M4000M does not support.

The power profile differs significantly: the RTX 5000 has a 230 W TDP with a dual-slot design and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the M4000M has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor, and requires no power connectors. The RTX 5000 has a 550 W suggested PSU, while the M4000M has none listed. Display outputs also differ: the RTX 5000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the M4000M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The RTX 5000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall; the M4000M has no dimensions listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the RTX 5000 and the M4000M is fundamental. The RTX 5000 is based on Turing architecture, which introduces dedicated RT cores (48 of them) for real-time ray tracing and tensor cores (384) for AI acceleration. The M4000M uses Maxwell 2.0, which has neither of these features. This means the RTX 5000 can accelerate ray-traced workloads and AI inference, while the M4000M relies purely on traditional shader-based processing.

The process node difference is also significant: 12 nm for the RTX 5000 versus 28 nm for the M4000M. This enables the RTX 5000 to pack 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0M per mm², compared to the M4000M’s 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die at 13.1M per mm². The newer process also allows for much higher clock speeds (1815 MHz boost vs 1013 MHz boost) without a proportional increase in power consumption relative to performance.

The DirectX support differs: the RTX 5000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 5000’s FP16 throughput of 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1) is a notable feature absent from the M4000M, which has no FP16 listing. This makes the RTX 5000 more suitable for mixed-precision compute workloads common in scientific and AI applications.

The memory architecture also reflects the generational gap: GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective on the RTX 5000 versus GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective on the M4000M. While both use a 256-bit bus, the RTX 5000 achieves 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the M4000M’s 160.4 GB/s. The RTX 5000’s 16 GB capacity is four times the M4000M’s 4 GB, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The release dates confirm the gap: the RTX 5000 launched in 2018, while the M4000M launched in 2015, a three-year span that explains the architectural leap. The RTX 5000’s predecessor is Quadro Volta, and its successor is Workstation Ampere, while the M4000M’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M.