GeForce GTX 980 Mobile vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with GeForce GTX 980 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P5000 outperforms GTX 980 Mobile by an impressive 52% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 170 | 265 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.04 | 20.06 |
| Power efficiency | 12.52 | 7.40 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 21 September 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $395.82 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 980 Mobile has 185% better value for money than Quadro P5000.
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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 1064 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1216 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 100-200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 136.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 4.358 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160 | 128 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 224 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | + |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | - | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | - | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | - | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | - | + |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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 | 93
−6.5%
| 99
+6.5%
|
| 4K | 41
−12.2%
| 46
+12.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 26.87
−572%
| 4.00
+572%
|
| 4K | 60.95
−608%
| 8.60
+608%
|
- GTX 980 Mobile has 572% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile has 608% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+63%
|
50−55
−63%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+71.1%
|
35−40
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+60.5%
|
40−45
−60.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+63%
|
50−55
−63%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+36.1%
|
80−85
−36.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+71.1%
|
35−40
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+60.5%
|
40−45
−60.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+47.1%
|
65−70
−47.1%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+33.3%
|
100−110
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+46.3%
|
80−85
−46.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+56.1%
|
55−60
−56.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+58.4%
|
75−80
−58.4%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.4%
|
140−150
−30.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+63%
|
50−55
−63%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+36.1%
|
80−85
−36.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+71.1%
|
35−40
−71.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+15.5%
|
230−240
−15.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+60.5%
|
40−45
−60.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+20.5%
|
110−120
−20.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+47.1%
|
65−70
−47.1%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+33.3%
|
100−110
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+46.3%
|
80−85
−46.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+56.1%
|
55−60
−56.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+27.4%
|
84
−27.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+59.1%
|
40−45
−59.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+58.4%
|
75−80
−58.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+16.7%
|
84
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.4%
|
140−150
−30.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+36.1%
|
80−85
−36.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+71.1%
|
35−40
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+60.5%
|
40−45
−60.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+20.5%
|
110−120
−20.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+47.1%
|
65−70
−47.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+46.3%
|
80−85
−46.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+56.1%
|
55−60
−56.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+58.4%
|
75−80
−58.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
+20.5%
|
44
−20.5%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.4%
|
140−150
−30.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+33.3%
|
100−110
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+45.5%
|
140−150
−45.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+68.6%
|
35−40
−68.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+65.4%
|
24−27
−65.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.2%
|
170−180
−1.2%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+23.7%
|
180−190
−23.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+43.9%
|
55−60
−43.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+73.7%
|
18−20
−73.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+56.5%
|
45−50
−56.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+62.7%
|
50−55
−62.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+63.6%
|
30−35
−63.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+63.8%
|
45−50
−63.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+1.7%
|
60
−1.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+58.8%
|
16−18
−58.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+20%
|
30
−20%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+58.6%
|
110−120
−58.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+54.8%
|
30−35
−54.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+36.2%
|
65−70
−36.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+68.2%
|
21−24
−68.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+80%
|
20−22
−80%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and GTX 980 Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 6% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 12% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 88% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is ahead in 66 tests (99%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.78 | 21.54 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 21 September 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Quadro P5000 has a 52.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
