GeForce GTX 980 Mobile vs Quadro P5000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P5000 outperforms GeForce GTX 980 Mobile by 45% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 160 | 232 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 10.01 | 30.27 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | N16E-GXX |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 22 September 2014 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | $395.82 |
| Current price | $1270 (0.5x MSRP) | $251 (0.6x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 Mobile has 202% better value for money than Quadro P5000.
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 | 2048 | 2048 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 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 | 144 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 8,873 gflops | 4,358 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Quadro P5000 and GeForce GTX 980 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | 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 | no data | + |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 9016 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 | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
| 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 | no data | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
| BatteryBoost | no data | + |
| 3D Stereo | + | 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 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 | 95
−4.2%
| 99
+4.2%
|
| 4K | 41
−9.8%
| 45
+9.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+36.4%
|
40−45
−36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+43.6%
|
35−40
−43.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+34.2%
|
70−75
−34.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 85−90
+48.3%
|
55−60
−48.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+43.1%
|
55−60
−43.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80−85
+37.3%
|
55−60
−37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| Hitman 3 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+46.8%
|
45−50
−46.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+44.4%
|
35−40
−44.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+54.2%
|
45−50
−54.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+41.9%
|
40−45
−41.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+36.4%
|
40−45
−36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+43.6%
|
35−40
−43.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+34.2%
|
70−75
−34.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 85−90
+48.3%
|
55−60
−48.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+43.1%
|
55−60
−43.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80−85
+37.3%
|
55−60
−37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| Hitman 3 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+46.8%
|
45−50
−46.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+55.6%
|
35−40
−55.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+44.4%
|
35−40
−44.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 70−75
+54.2%
|
45−50
−54.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+16.7%
|
84
−16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+41.9%
|
40−45
−41.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+36.4%
|
40−45
−36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55−60
+43.6%
|
35−40
−43.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+34.2%
|
70−75
−34.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+43.1%
|
55−60
−43.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 80−85
+37.3%
|
55−60
−37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+36%
|
75−80
−36%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 53
+20.5%
|
44
−20.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
+41.9%
|
40−45
−41.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50−55
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 55−60
+58.3%
|
35−40
−58.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 40−45
+48.3%
|
27−30
−48.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+55.2%
|
27−30
−55.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+42.9%
|
45−50
−42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 60−65
+41.9%
|
40−45
−41.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+48.9%
|
45−50
−48.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+68%
|
24−27
−68%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+58.8%
|
16−18
−58.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+20%
|
30
−20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+45.2%
|
30−35
−45.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and GTX 980 Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 4.2% faster than Quadro P5000 in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 9.8% faster than Quadro P5000 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 80% faster than the GTX 980 Mobile.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P5000 surpassed GTX 980 Mobile in all 68 of our tests.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 32.05 | 22.15 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 22 September 2014 |
| Cost | $2499 | $395.82 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
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.
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.
