The gaming cards do really well (only the Quadro K6000 is faster), but we have to set them aside; nobody's going to use a consumer-oriented product in the medical field.
With those out of the way, we're left with essentially the same picture painted by Energy, the other synthetic volume rendering benchmark. Not only does AMD's FirePro W7000 dominate the Quadro K5000 in yet another suite, but the FirePro W5000 manages to beat the Quadro K4000 by a good margin and is almost twice as fast as the similarly-priced Quadro K2000.
Just remember that this is a synthetic collection of tests, though. It puts an emphasis on memory capacity and performance. While representative of the workloads encountered in the medical field, SPEC's benchmark primarily provides a good summary of how these cards might fare in real-world applications.
When AMD releases the mighty 16GB FirePro 9100 based on Radeon R9-290X core will be competitive to the Quadro K6000 in performance.
I find that internal benchmarking the only way to really understand the value of workstation cards. W7000 for example - it was awesome in our internal testing. While good, the cards is much better than these benchmark results suggest. Not sure why I would look at another SPEC benchmark when I will still need to test the cards in-house to really know how good they are for our applications and models.
Unfortunately, testing in the real applications (using something like APCapc) requires actual licenses of the software apps. Many of these vendors (CATIA, NX, etc) simply don't make temp licenses available for reviewers/journalists or other non-users.
VP12 should be quite good enough to help make informed evaluations of GPU hardware. If you are concerned about seeing in-application performance measurements for particular apps, you can ususually find the data with a bit of googling, although take results you find posted on the internet by "regular Joe's" with a grain of salt.
tsk tsk tsk
About CPU Scaling: "In the second set of our scaling results, only SolidWorks responds to CPU frequency. Core and thread count don't make a difference.¨
This is not entirely true. It goes as far as 10% at 4.5 GHz.