Quadro 5000 vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with Quadro 5000, including specs and performance data.
980 Mobile outperforms 5000 by a whopping 313% 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 | 314 | 687 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.06 | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 7.45 | 2.37 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 23 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 980 Mobile has 9986% better value for money than Quadro 5000.
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 | 2048 | 352 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 513 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 152 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 22.57 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | 0.7223 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 40 |
| TMUs | 128 | 44 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 704 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 640 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 | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | 4 GB | 2.5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 120.0 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | + | - |
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 | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.0 |
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:
| Full HD | 99
+371%
| 21−24
−371%
|
| 4K | 46
+360%
| 10−12
−360%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.00
+2876%
| 119.00
−2876%
|
| 4K | 8.60
+2804%
| 249.90
−2804%
|
- GTX 980 Mobile has 2876% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile has 2804% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+315%
|
27−30
−315%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+356%
|
18−20
−356%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+315%
|
27−30
−315%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+333%
|
24−27
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+320%
|
35−40
−320%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+356%
|
18−20
−356%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+315%
|
27−30
−315%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+327%
|
55−60
−327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+363%
|
24−27
−363%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+333%
|
24−27
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+320%
|
35−40
−320%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+356%
|
18−20
−356%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+363%
|
24−27
−363%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+357%
|
14−16
−357%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+322%
|
18−20
−322%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+320%
|
35−40
−320%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+333%
|
24−27
−333%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+344%
|
9−10
−344%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+377%
|
30−33
−377%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+330%
|
40−45
−330%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+355%
|
40−45
−355%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+367%
|
12−14
−367%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+360%
|
10−11
−360%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+319%
|
27−30
−319%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+325%
|
16−18
−325%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and Quadro 5000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 371% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 360% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.22 | 4.65 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 23 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2.5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 152 Watt |
GTX 980 Mobile has a 313.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 52% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
