Quadro P4000 Mobile vs Quadro M5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000 with Quadro P4000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
M5000 outperforms P4000 Mobile by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 230 | 267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.09 | 7.90 |
| Power efficiency | 11.10 | 14.14 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 11 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,856.99 | $819.61 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
P4000 Mobile has 156% better value for money than Quadro M5000.
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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 861 MHz | 1227 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 132.9 | 137.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.252 TFLOPS | 4.398 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 112 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-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 | 256 Bit | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 211 GB/s | 192 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 6.1 |
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 | 24.29 | 20.62 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 11 January 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro M5000 has a 17.8% higher aggregate performance score.
P4000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5000 is a workstation card while Quadro P4000 Mobile 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.
