Quadro M5000 vs P5000
Aggregated performance score
P5000 outperforms M5000 by 32% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 160 | 208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 9.95 | 7.89 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (7 years old) | 29 June 2015 (8 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $2,856.99 |
| Current price | $1270 (0.5x MSRP) | $823 (0.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P5000 has 26% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 861 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 132.9 |
| Floating-point performance | 8,873 gflops | 4,252 gflops |
Size and 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2" (5.1 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1 x 6-pin |
| SLI options | no data | + |
Memory
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 | 256 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 9016 MHz | 6612 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | Up to 211 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | DVI-I DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| Multi-display synchronization | no data | Quadro Sync |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 5.2 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
P5000 outperforms M5000 by 32% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
P5000 outperforms M5000 by 32% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
P5000 outperforms M5000 by 76% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
P5000 outperforms M5000 by 66% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
P5000 outperforms M5000 by 84% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 95
+35.7%
| 70−75
−35.7%
|
| 4K | 41
+36.7%
| 30−35
−36.7%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+40%
|
70−75
−40%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 85−90
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+38.3%
|
60−65
−38.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| Hitman 3 | 95−100
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+40%
|
70−75
−40%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 85−90
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+38.3%
|
60−65
−38.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| Hitman 3 | 95−100
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+40%
|
70−75
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+40%
|
70−75
−40%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+38.3%
|
60−65
−38.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+35.6%
|
45−50
−35.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+34%
|
50−55
−34%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+33.3%
|
27−30
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and Quadro M5000 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- Quadro P5000 is 35.7% faster than Quadro M5000
4K resolution:
- Quadro P5000 is 36.7% faster than Quadro M5000
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 31.93 | 24.22 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 29 June 2015 |
| Cost | $2499 | $2856.99 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 150 Watt |
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
