NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits decisively along API lines. In Geekbench Metal, the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB scores 14,587 against the Quadro K6000's 7,932, a delta of 83.9%. That is not a marginal gap; it is a near doubling of performance in Apple's graphics API. The OpenCL result repeats the pattern, with the GTX 1060 reaching 32,322 versus 23,749 for the Quadro, a 36.1% advantage. In both tests, the younger Pascal card demonstrates a commanding lead.

The Vulkan benchmark flips the script. The Quadro K6000 posts 25,409 while the GTX 1060 manages 18,659, meaning the Kepler workstation card wins by 26.6%. This is the sole victory for the Quadro, and it is substantial. The two cards split the three recorded tests, with the GTX 1060 taking two and the K6000 taking one. The aggregate benchmark score, however, favors the GTX 1060 at 21,856 against 19,030 for the K6000, a difference that positions the consumer card in the 67th percentile of all GPUs versus the 63rd percentile for the professional card.

The margin of victory in Metal is particularly striking. An 83.9% delta suggests architectural efficiency, not just clock speed. The GTX 1060's base clock of 1506 MHz with a 1709 MHz boost dwarfs the K6000's 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. Yet the Quadro wins in Vulkan despite those lower clocks, which points to a different kind of design strength. The data implies that raw frequency is not the whole story. The K6000's wider memory bus and larger framebuffer may compensate in certain workloads, but the benchmark results show that API selection matters enormously when comparing these two generations.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectural eras. The GTX 1060 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro K6000 relies on the GK110B chip with the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm node, also at TSMC. That process difference explains the transistor density: the Pascal chip packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding 22.0M transistors per mm². The Kepler chip contains 7,080 million transistors across a 561 mm² die, for a density of 12.6M per mm². The GTX 1060 is the denser design by a wide margin.

The Quadro counters with raw resources. It carries 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, versus the GTX 1060's 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The K6000 has more than double the shader count and triple the texture units. Its texture rate reaches 216.5 GTexel/s, far above the GTX 1060's 136.7 GTexel/s. In floating point, the Quadro's FP32 throughput is 5.196 TFLOPS against 4.375 TFLOPS for the GTX 1060. The Pascal card fights back with pixel rate: 82.03 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s, a consequence of its much higher clocks.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The GTX 1060 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s. That is double the capacity and 50% more bandwidth. The K6000's memory clock runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1060's memory runs at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The GTX 1060 has faster memory per pin, but the Quadro's wider bus wins overall. Neither card includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those additions to NVIDIA's lineup.

API support shows another split. The GTX 1060 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, while the Quadro K6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Both offer OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support differs: the GTX 1060 lists Vulkan 1.4, while the K6000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175. This may explain the Vulkan benchmark result, as the newer API version on the Pascal card still lost to the older implementation on Kepler. The display outputs also differ: the GTX 1060 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K6000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB averages 21,856 across its recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030. The GTX 1060 also sits in the 67th percentile of all GPUs, four points above the K6000's 63rd percentile.

Q: Why does the Quadro K6000 win the Vulkan test despite lower clock speeds?

A: The K6000 posts 25,409 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 18,659 for the GTX 1060, a 26.6% advantage. The data shows the Quadro has many more shading units (2,880 versus 1,280), a wider 384-bit memory bus, and 12 GB of VRAM. These resources likely compensate for its lower 797 MHz base clock in that specific workload.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 1060 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 192.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro offers double the capacity and 50% more bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The GTX 1060's GP106 chip contains 4,400 million transistors, while the Quadro K6000's GK110B chip contains 7,080 million. The Kepler chip is larger in both transistor count and die size (561 mm² versus 200 mm²).

Q: Which card has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1060 achieves 82.03 GPixel/s, while the Quadro K6000 manages 54.12 GPixel/s. Despite having fewer ROPs (48 for both, actually identical), the GTX 1060's much higher clock speeds drive this advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 1060 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan versions differ with 1.4 on the GTX 1060 and 1.2.175 on the K6000.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured specification. The GTX 1060 uses the GP106 chip on Pascal architecture with a 16 nm process, while the K6000 uses GK110B on Kepler with a 28 nm process. Transistor counts are 4,400 million versus 7,080 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 561 mm². Transistor density favors the GTX 1060 at 22.0M per mm², more than double the K6000's 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds are not close. The GTX 1060 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost, while the K6000 runs at 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) on the GTX 1060 versus 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the K6000. The GTX 1060 has 6 GB of memory on a 192-bit bus, while the K6000 has 12 GB on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth goes to the K6000 at 288.4 GB/s, against 192.2 GB/s for the GTX 1060.

Compute resources split differently. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units and 240 TMUs, while the GTX 1060 has 1,280 and 80, respectively. Both have 48 ROPs. The GTX 1060 leads in pixel rate (82.03 versus 54.12 GPixel/s) but trails in texture rate (136.7 versus 216.5 GTexel/s) and FP32 (4.375 versus 5.196 TFLOPS). The GTX 1060 lists FP16 at 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the K6000 has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specs differ as well. The GTX 1060 has a 120 W TDP, requires a 300 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 6-pin connector. The K6000 has a 225 W TDP, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, and uses two 6-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards. The GTX 1060 measures 250 mm (9.8 inches) in length, while the K6000 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches); both are 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. Display outputs favor the GTX 1060 with more modern ports, while the K6000 sticks with older DVI and DisplayPort 1.2 connections. The GTX 1060 was released in 2016, while the K6000 came in 2013. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1060 wins in Metal and OpenCL workloads. Its 83.9% Metal advantage and 36.1% OpenCL advantage make it the clear choice for Apple-centric rendering or compute tasks. The Pascal architecture's higher clocks and modern process node deliver superior per-watt performance and pixel throughput. For users running Geekbench Metal or OpenCL benchmarks, the GTX 1060 is the stronger card. Its 82.03 GPixel/s pixel rate also suggests an edge in resolution-dependent rasterization tasks.

The Quadro K6000 wins in Vulkan workloads. Its 26.6% lead in that API indicates that its larger memory pool and wider bus matter in Vulkan's draw call and texture handling patterns. The K6000's 2,880 shading units and 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 also make it a brute-force compute option for tasks that saturate shader throughput. Its 12 GB of memory provides twice the capacity, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures that exceed the GTX 1060's 6 GB limit. The K6000's higher texture rate of 216.5 GTexel/s also points to advantages in texel-heavy scenes.

The aggregate data gives the GTX 1060 two wins out of three benchmarks, but the K6000's single win is large enough to keep it relevant. In the nearest rival context, the GTX 1060 scores 1% above the Quadro RTX 5000 and 2.2% above the RTX A4000 Mobile, while the K6000 essentially matches the Radeon RX 6600 (0% delta) and sits 0.4% above the RTX 2000 Ada Generation. The GTX 1060's 67th percentile places it slightly above the K6000's 63rd percentile in the overall GPU landscape.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear generational shift. The GTX 1060 outperforms the K6000 in two of three recorded benchmarks and holds a higher average score (21,856 versus 19,030). For general-purpose graphics workloads measured by Metal and OpenCL, the GTX 1060 is the better card. Its 83.9% Metal lead is decisive, and its 36.1% OpenCL lead leaves little room for debate. The Pascal architecture's 16 nm process and 1709 MHz boost clock deliver results that the Kepler part cannot match in those APIs.

The Quadro K6000 retains a niche. Its Vulkan win by 26.6% shows that raw resources still matter. The 12 GB framebuffer and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are double and 50% higher than the GTX 1060's, respectively. For Vulkan-specific applications or workloads that need large memory capacity, the K6000 has a legitimate claim. Its 2,880 shading units and 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 also make it a stronger theoretical compute device, even if the benchmarks do not consistently reflect that.

Who should pick which? Users prioritizing modern API performance, higher pixel rates, and lower power draw (120 W versus 225 W) should choose the GTX 1060. Those needing double the VRAM, higher texture throughput, and Vulkan-specific strength should consider the K6000. The GTX 1060's launch MSRP was 299 USD, while the K6000's was 5,265 USD. The benchmark data does not justify that price gap for most workloads, but the K6000's niche advantages may matter in professional environments where memory and Vulkan performance are critical. For the majority of measured tasks, the GTX 1060 is the stronger performer.