NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA mobile graphics, with the GTX 1060 built on the 16 nm Pascal architecture and the Quadro M4000M on the older 28 nm Maxwell 2.0 design. Both cards target different segments—the GTX 1060 for consumer gaming laptops, the Quadro M4000M for professional mobile workstations—but their benchmark results show a closer contest than the generational gap might suggest. The GTX 1060 holds a 6.7% higher average benchmark score (21856 vs 20480), yet the Quadro M4000M wins the Vulkan test outright, making this a nuanced comparison where each card claims one head-to-head victory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB averages 21856 across all benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M averages 20480, giving the GTX 1060 a 6.7% overall lead.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 1060 6 GB scores 32322 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 61.7% higher than the Quadro M4000M's 19989, representing the largest single-test margin between the two.

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro M4000M takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 20971, beating the GTX 1060's 18659 by 11%. This gives the Quadro its only head-to-head win.

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

A: The Quadro M4000M's GM204 chip contains 5,200 million transistors, more than the GTX 1060's GP106, which has 4,400 million transistors, despite the GTX 1060 being built on the newer 16 nm process.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The GTX 1060 achieves 192.2 GB/s across a 192-bit bus, while the Quadro M4000M delivers 160.4 GB/s over a wider 256-bit bus, giving the GTX 1060 a 19.8% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Do both cards support the same API feature level?

A: Yes, both the GTX 1060 and Quadro M4000M support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, despite their different architectures and release dates.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap here is substantial. The GTX 1060 uses the GP106 chip on TSMC's 16 nm process, while the Quadro M4000M employs the GM204 die on a 28 nm process. This process shrink allows the GTX 1060 to pack 22.0 million transistors per mm², nearly double the Quadro's 13.1M/mm² density. Consequently, the GTX 1060 fits 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, whereas the Quadro M4000M needs 398 mm² to house its 5,200 million transistors—the larger absolute count but far lower density.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of architectural efficiency. The GTX 1060 runs at a 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost, while the Quadro M4000M operates at 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. This 54% boost-clock advantage for the GTX 1060 directly translates into its higher compute throughput. The GTX 1060 delivers 4.375 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro M4000M manages 2.593 TFLOPS—a 68.7% gap in raw floating-point capability.

Both GPUs share identical shading unit and texture mapping unit counts (1280 and 80, respectively), but the Quadro M4000M has 64 ROPs versus the GTX 1060's 48. The GTX 1060 supports FP16 at 68.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the Quadro M4000M lists no FP16 capability at all. The GTX 1060 also features faster memory clocks at 2002 MHz (8 Gbps effective) compared to the Quadro's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), though the Quadro's 256-bit bus partially compensates with its 160.4 GB/s bandwidth versus the GTX 1060's 192.2 GB/s.

Power and physical design differ markedly. The GTX 1060 is a dual-slot card drawing 120 W with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro M4000M is an MXM module consuming 100 W with no power connectors and no suggested PSU rating. The GTX 1060 measures 250 mm in length, but the Quadro's dimensions are not specified. Display outputs also diverge: the GTX 1060 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro M4000M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests split decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1060 6 GB scores 32322 against the Quadro M4000M's 19989. That is a 61.7% delta—the GTX 1060's overwhelming advantage in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads comes from its higher clocks, newer process node, and superior FP32 throughput. This is the kind of margin that defines generational leaps, with the Pascal architecture delivering nearly twice the raw shader performance of Maxwell at similar power levels.

The Vulkan result flips the script. The Quadro M4000M scores 20971 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the GTX 1060's 18659 by 11%. This is notable because the GTX 1060 has higher theoretical compute and memory bandwidth, yet the Quadro's broader 256-bit memory interface and different driver optimization for professional workloads may explain its Vulkan advantage. The 11% deficit for the GTX 1060 in Vulkan is significant, especially for a newer architecture that should theoretically excel in modern API workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 1060's average benchmark score of 21856 places it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M4000M sits at the 65th percentile with its 20480 average. The GTX 1060's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (21629, just 1% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 6700S (22154, 1.3% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (22170, 1.4% higher). The Quadro M4000M's nearest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, 0.3% higher), Intel Arc B570 (20556, 0.4% higher), and Intel Arc A750 (20582, 0.5% higher). These proximity scores show both GPUs are tightly clustered in the mid-range performance tier, with the GTX 1060 holding a slim but consistent edge.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear generational and segment distinctions. The GTX 1060 uses the GP106 chip on 16 nm TSMC process, while the Quadro M4000M uses GM204 on 28 nm. Transistor counts differ: 4,400 million for the GTX 1060 versus 5,200 million for the Quadro. Die sizes are 200 mm² and 398 mm², respectively, with transistor densities of 22.0M/mm² and 13.1M/mm².

Clock speeds show the GTX 1060's advantage: 1506 MHz base and 1709 MHz boost versus the Quadro's 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. Memory configs differ in size (6 GB GDDR5 for GTX 1060, 4 GB GDDR5 for Quadro), bus width (192-bit vs 256-bit), and effective speed (8 Gbps vs 5 Gbps), yielding bandwidth of 192.2 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s.

Compute resources are partially shared—both have 1280 shading units and 80 TMUs—but ROPs differ at 48 for the GTX 1060 and 64 for the Quadro. Pixel rates reflect this: the GTX 1060 hits 82.03 GPixel/s, while the Quadro manages 64.83 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 136.7 GTexel/s for the GTX 1060 and 81.04 GTexel/s for the Quadro. FP32 performance is 4.375 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS, and only the GTX 1060 offers FP16 (68.36 GFLOPS).

Power requirements differ: 120 W TDP for the GTX 1060 versus 100 W for the Quadro. Form factors diverge—dual-slot with 1x 6-pin power for the GTX 1060, MXM module with no connectors for the Quadro. The GTX 1060 has a suggested PSU of 300 W; the Quadro lists none. Dimensions exist only for the GTX 1060 (250 mm length). Release dates place the GTX 1060 at 2016-07-18 and the Quadro M4000M at 2015-08-17, roughly 11 months apart. The GTX 1060 launched at 299 USD MSRP; the Quadro has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1060 6 GB is the clear choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads. Its 61.7% OpenCL advantage over the Quadro M4000M makes it the dominant card for general-purpose compute, GPU-accelerated rendering, and any application that leverages OpenCL for parallel processing. The higher FP32 throughput (4.375 TFLOPS) and faster memory bandwidth (192.2 GB/s) reinforce this strength. The GTX 1060 also wins on pixel fill rate (82.03 GPixel/s vs 64.83 GPixel/s) and texture rate (136.7 GTexel/s vs 81.04 GTexel/s), making it the better performer for rasterization-heavy tasks despite having fewer ROPs.

The Quadro M4000M's single victory in Vulkan (20971 vs 18659, an 11% margin) suggests it may hold an edge in Vulkan-based applications, which could benefit certain professional visualization tools or modern game engines that prioritize Vulkan. Its wider 256-bit memory bus and larger ROP count (64 vs 48) may contribute to this result. The Quadro also draws less power (100 W vs 120 W) and uses a compact MXM form factor, making it potentially easier to integrate into thin workstation laptops.

For average benchmark performance, the GTX 1060 maintains a 6.7% lead, which positions it as the stronger all-around card. However, the Quadro's Vulkan win is not trivial—an 11% margin in a modern API benchmark indicates that its Maxwell architecture retains relevance in specific workloads. The GTX 1060's percentile ranking (67th vs 65th) and higher average score (21856 vs 20480) make it the safer recommendation for mixed-use scenarios, while the Quadro M4000M may be preferable for users whose software stack relies heavily on Vulkan or who value lower power consumption in a mobile form factor.