Quadro K5000 vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.
P4000 Mobile outperforms K5000 by an impressive 95% 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 | 326 | 492 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.14 | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 14.24 | 6.00 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 17 August 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
P4000 Mobile has 1063% better value for money than Quadro K5000.
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 | 1792 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 90.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 2.169 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | 1502 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 172.8 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 | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 3.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.47 | 9.49 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 17 August 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 122 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has a 94.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 22% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Quadro K5000 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.
