Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 vs Quadro K5000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5000M with Matrox M9125 PCIe x16, including specs and performance data.

K5000M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.20
+11900%

K5000M outperforms Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 by a whopping 11900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5411467
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.30no data
Power efficiency5.02no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)PX
GPU code nameGK104PX-A1
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1344no data
Core clock speed601 MHz250 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Wattno data
Texture fill rate67.312.000
Floating-point processing power1.615 TFLOPSno data
ROPs322
TMUs1128

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed750 MHz300 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s4.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs2x DVI, 2x LFH60

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)8.1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.61.5
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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.

K5000M 7.20
+11900%
Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 0.06

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

K5000M 2778
+11012%
Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 25

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 HD50-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.60no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
Hitman 3 14−16 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45 0−1
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
Hitman 3 14−16 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45 0−1
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
Hitman 3 14−16 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Hitman 3 10−12 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16 0−1
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.20 0.06
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm

K5000M has a 11900% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro K5000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K5000M is a mobile workstation card while Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K5000M
Quadro K5000M
Matrox M9125 PCIe x16
M9125 PCIe x16

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 85 votes

Rate Quadro K5000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 2 votes

Rate Matrox M9125 PCIe x16 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.