GeForce GTX 680M vs Quadro M5000M
Aggregated performance score
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by a whopping 116% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 286 | 470 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.71 | 3.53 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | N13E-GTX |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) | 4 June 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $310.50 |
| Current price | $468 | $293 (0.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
M5000M has 118% better value for money than GTX 680M.
Detailed specifications
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 | 1,536 | 1344 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 962 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1051 MHz | 758 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.60 | 80.6 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 2,995 gflops | 2,038 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M5000M and GeForce GTX 680M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | no data | + |
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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 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.
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 116% 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%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 116% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 101% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 128% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 130% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 122% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 95% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
Quadro M5000M outperforms GeForce GTX 680M by 91% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 | 140−150
+109%
| 67
−109%
|
| Full HD | 84
+31.3%
| 64
−31.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+118%
|
16−18
−118%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+118%
|
27−30
−118%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+135%
|
20−22
−135%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+114%
|
27−30
−114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+124%
|
16−18
−124%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+118%
|
16−18
−118%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+118%
|
27−30
−118%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+135%
|
20−22
−135%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+114%
|
27−30
−114%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50−55
+143%
|
21−24
−143%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+124%
|
16−18
−124%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 67
+294%
|
16−18
−294%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+118%
|
16−18
−118%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+118%
|
27−30
−118%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+135%
|
20−22
−135%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+114%
|
27−30
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+124%
|
16−18
−124%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+109%
|
10−12
−109%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+255%
|
10−12
−255%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+131%
|
12−14
−131%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how M5000M and GTX 680M compete in popular games:
- M5000M is 109% faster in 900p
- M5000M is 31% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the M5000M is 400% faster than the GTX 680M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, M5000M surpassed GTX 680M in all 68 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.98 | 8.31 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 4 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
The Quadro M5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 680M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
