Benchmarking NVidia’s new Quadro 5000
Since the Fermi chipset came to reality in the GTX480 card, high end graphics professionals have had a difficult choice. They can take the latest and greatest technology, the GeForce GTX480, or go back a generation for a QuadroFX 4800 (or similar). Several of the newer CUDA applications for professionals, like the Adobe CS5 applications, only works on Quadro cards. The added performance of the Fermi chipset, tho, makes it worth it in certain applications. It’s been a difficult decision time for Quadro fans.
Today, NVidia has announced that this is a difficult decision no more. They’ve just announced the newest generation of their popular Quadro cards using the newly designed ‘Fermi’ technology and combines it with the rest of the Quadro ecosystem to bring to bear a card that truly is top of its class. The core of the new offering is three new Quadro Cards:
- Quadro 4000 – 2GB, 256 cores
- Quadro 5000 – 2.5GB, 352 cores
- Quadro 6000 – 6GB, 448 Cores
Yep that’s right. The Quadro 6000 sets a new record for video memory with 6GB available on a single card. In addition to these three, there will be a new Quadro 5000m design, which packs the regular Quadro 5000 into a mobile form factor suitable for high-end laptops without compromising functionality. Also, if you really need power, you can get the new QuadroPlex system which contains 2 Quadro6000′s for truly amazing power.
NVidia gave me one of the Quadro5000′s to review, and you can read my results below.
Test Setup
For my testing, I ran all tests on an identical computer, simply changing the video card between tests. The machine is a BOXXTech computer with 2 Intel Xeon 5550′s and HyperThreading, yielding an effective 16 cores, and 20GB of RAM. The Linux drivers weren’t ready during my benchmarks, so all tests were done on Windows.
The Quadro 5000 requires a single PCIx16 slot, and a single 6-pin power connector. Benchmarks were run on the following GPUs:
- Quadro 5500
- Quadro 5600
- Quadro 4800
- Quadro 5000
- GeForce GTX285
The Quadro 5500 was left out of some tests as it is not CUDA compliant.
Due to the sheer size of this article and the large charts and graphs included, it’s been broken into multiple pages (one page per primary focus area). You can use the dropdown to view the full article on one page, suitable for printing or storage.
So now, let’s get on to the results!
Nvidia Quadro 5000 Vs. ATI FirePro V8800
NVidia Tesla C2050 (Fermi) benchmarking results
“Marmaduke” Comes To Life Thanks to NVidia Quadro
NVidia Tesla M2050 & M2070/M2070Q Specs Online
Randall Hand on 
Sean Ahern on 
VizWorld.com 
“Add in the support for the new OptiX 2, 3d Vision Pro technology” but you would need 2 cards to do stereo on 3 monitors? makes it expensive
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ chris True, but I don’t know of many professional types that are using Stereo on 3 monitors.
I wonder if NVIDIA could give you a 6000.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Randall,
Other than drivers and memory, can you tell me why the 480 core nVidia GTX 480 would not be better than the Quadro 5000 with only 352 cores?
After waiting so long, I am really disappointed the Quadros don’t have the same AND more cores than the GTX 480…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Nick D Well, for reasons similar to why you would choose a Quadro4800 over a GTX285. The GTX285 has 240 cores [link], while the Quadro4800 only has 192 [link], but you can look at the benchmarks I posted and see how the Quadro4800 smokes the GTX285 in several benchmarks.
While more cores is nice, it’s not the sole indicator of performance. The Quadro cards are optimized to use the advanced graphics features not typically used by games, but frequently used by CAD & Visualization products. Because of these optimizations, a Quadro will always beat a GeForce when those features come into play.
Just wondering if the Fermi based cards are Mac compatible…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Randall,
thanks for posting your assessment. I habe a pretty basic question as I am in no way an expert in graphics hardware. Do I benefit of the new GPU with all kinds of workstations or do I need to have a minimal configuration in terms of CPU, working memory etc. to really feel the difference between, let’s say, a 5000 and its predecessor, the 4800?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Matt It depends heavily on the application, and faster/newer is always better. But, if you’re in the CAD or 3d Graphics market then I’m pretty sure you would see some improvement.
Randall,
Thanks a lot for the review, please keep up the great work.
I was wondering if you could clarify the test setup, It was my understanding that Xeon 5550′s could only run 2-way, not 4-way like the 7500′s? Could you please shed some light on your system and its configuration.
Thanks a lot for your time
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@ Griffin Doh, you’re right.. I just checked the BIOS, I’ve got 2 Xeon 5550′s (8 cores) with HyperThreading enabled. I missed that. I’ll update the article.