Quadro K5000M vs GRID K260Q
Quadro K5000M
Popular choices:
GRID K260Q
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K5000M is positioned at rank 50 and the GRID K260Q is on rank 247, so the Quadro K5000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K5000M
Performance Per Dollar GRID K260Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K260Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 5.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K5000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-5.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+5.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K260Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K260Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $509), it costs 97% less, resulting in a 3467.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+3467.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($509) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K5000M and GRID K260Q
Quadro K5000M
The Quadro K5000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 7 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 601 MHz. It has 1344 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,805 points. Launch price was $329.99.
GRID K260Q
The GRID K260Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,949 points. Launch price was $937.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro K5000M scores 2,805 versus the GRID K260Q's 2,949 — the GRID K260Q leads by 5.1%. The Quadro K5000M is built on Kepler while the GRID K260Q uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,344 (Quadro K5000M) vs 1,536 (GRID K260Q). Raw compute: 1.615 TFLOPS (Quadro K5000M) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K260Q).
| Feature | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,805 | 2,949+5% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1344 | 1536+14% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.615 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS+42% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 128+14% |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 128 KB+14% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K5000M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K260Q has 2 GB. The Quadro K5000M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K5000M draws 100W versus the GRID K260Q's 225W — a 76.9% difference. The Quadro K5000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K5000M) vs 350W (GRID K260Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W-56% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 81°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 28.1+115% | 13.1 |
Value Analysis
The GRID K260Q costs 97.1% less ($494 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.5 (Quadro K5000M) vs 196.6 (GRID K260Q) — the GRID K260Q offers 3474.5% better value. The GRID K260Q is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro K5000M | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $937 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $509 | $15-97% |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.5 | 196.6+3475% |
| Codename | GK104 | GK104 |
| Release | August 7 2012 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #600 | #589 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K5000M and GRID K260Q
