Quadro 5000M vs GeForce GTX 970M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 970M with Quadro 5000M, including specs and performance data.
970M outperforms 5000M by a whopping 177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 412 | 684 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.55 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.98 | 3.79 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 27 July 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,560.89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 924 MHz | 405 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 83.04 | 16.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.657 TFLOPS | 0.5184 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 640 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1792 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 120 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 136
+202%
| 45−50
−202%
|
| Full HD | 58
+222%
| 18−21
−222%
|
| 1440p | 27
+200%
| 9−10
−200%
|
| 4K | 21
+200%
| 7−8
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.15 | no data |
| 1440p | 94.85 | no data |
| 4K | 121.95 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+250%
|
21−24
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+250%
|
21−24
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 46
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Fortnite | 163
+443%
|
30−33
−443%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 61
+165%
|
21−24
−165%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60
+216%
|
18−20
−216%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+91.8%
|
60−65
−91.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+157%
|
21−24
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+250%
|
21−24
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+122%
|
85−90
−122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+114%
|
40−45
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+187%
|
14−16
−187%
|
| Fortnite | 65
+117%
|
30−33
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+130%
|
21−24
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+158%
|
18−20
−158%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+91.8%
|
60−65
−91.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+114%
|
40−45
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+160%
|
14−16
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+56.5%
|
21−24
−56.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
+73.7%
|
18−20
−73.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+91.8%
|
60−65
−91.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 49
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+171%
|
35−40
−171%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+256%
|
35−40
−256%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+167%
|
50−55
−167%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 31
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+204%
|
24−27
−204%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
This is how GTX 970M and Quadro 5000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 970M is 202% faster in 900p
- GTX 970M is 222% faster in 1080p
- GTX 970M is 200% faster in 1440p
- GTX 970M is 200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 970M is 1500% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 17% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 970M performs better in 56 tests (98%)
- Quadro 5000M performs better in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.65 | 4.92 |
| Recency | 7 October 2014 | 27 July 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 1792 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
GTX 970M has a 177% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 71% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 970M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 970M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 5000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
