NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 represent two distinct branches of the Fermi architecture family, one aimed at professional visualization and the other at consumer gaming. Despite sharing a 40 nm manufacturing process and TSMC as their foundry, the data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, with the Quadro 6000 leading the only shared benchmark by a decisive margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, a compute-oriented test that measures raw GPU throughput. In this matchup, the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points, while the GTX 560 trails at 9,058 points. The delta percentage of 8.7% in favor of the Quadro 6000 is substantial, translating to a lead of 788 points. This is not a marginal difference; it indicates a significant gap in compute capability that aligns with the Quadro’s professional positioning.

Looking at the wider context, the Quadro 6000’s score places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 9,846. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, a 0.1% difference) and the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% behind). The Quadro 6000 also edges out the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% behind), which is notable given the GTX 1070’s much later release. Conversely, it slightly trails the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, -1.1% delta), suggesting its performance is competitive with a generation of mobile flagship parts.

The GTX 560, meanwhile, sits in the 45th percentile with an average score of 9,058. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037, 0.2% ahead of the GTX 560), which is a fascinating result — a high-end enthusiast card from a much later era barely outpaces this older mainstream part in this specific workload. The GTX 560 also narrowly beats the GeForce GTX 660 (9,022, 0.4% behind) and the AMD Radeon 550X (8,918, 1.6% behind), but falls short of the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210, -1.7% delta). This clustering of scores around 9,000 points suggests the GTX 560’s compute performance is firmly in a mid-range tier, despite its age.

The 8.7% delta between the two cards is the largest in either’s immediate rival group. For the Quadro 6000, the closest rival is only 1.1% away, making its win over the GTX 560 a clear outlier. For the GTX 560, the closest rival is 0.2% away, yet the Quadro 6000 is 8.7% ahead, reinforcing that the professional card operates in a higher performance class. The benchmark data does not show a single test where the GTX 560 wins; the Quadro 6000 claims the only win.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute score in the head-to-head test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,846, compared to the GTX 560’s 9,058, an 8.7% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro 6000’s score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 6000’s average score of 9,846 places it ahead of the Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1% delta) and the FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% delta), while being 1.1% behind the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959).

Q: Is the GTX 560’s performance close to any modern GPUs?

A: Yes, the GTX 560’s score of 9,058 is only 0.2% behind the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) and 0.4% ahead of the GeForce GTX 660 (9,022), though it trails the AMD Radeon 890M (9,210) by 1.7%.

Q: What is the transistor and die size difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 6000 uses 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the GTX 560 uses 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. Both have the same transistor density of 5.9M per mm².

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 in their API support, despite their different generations and target markets.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s due to a 384-bit bus and 6 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 560 has 128.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Quadro 6000 is built on the GF100 chip, the original Fermi architecture, while the GTX 560 uses GF114, which NVIDIA labels as Fermi 2.0. This is not a minor revision; the chip design itself changes. The GF100 is a massive, compute-oriented design with 3,100 million transistors packed into a 529 mm² die. The GF114, in contrast, is a streamlined part with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. Both share the same 40 nm process and TSMC foundry, yielding identical transistor densities of 5.9M per mm², but the Quadro’s larger budget is spent differently.

The shading unit count reflects this divergence. The Quadro 6000 houses 448 shading units, while the GTX 560 has 336. Texture mapping units are identical at 56 each, but the render output units differ: the Quadro has 48 ROPs versus the GTX 560’s 32. This gives the Quadro a pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s, substantially higher than the GTX 560’s 11.34 GPixel/s. However, the GTX 560 has a higher texture rate at 45.36 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro’s 32.14 GTexel/s. This is an interesting inversion — the consumer card is better at texture fill, while the professional card excels at pixel fill and general compute.

The FP32 performance tells a similar story. The Quadro 6000 achieves 1,027.7 GFLOPS, while the GTX 560 reaches 1,088.6 GFLOPS. The GTX 560 is actually slightly faster in raw floating-point throughput, yet loses the OpenCL benchmark by 8.7%. This suggests the Quadro’s advantage lies not in raw FLOPs but in other factors, such as memory bandwidth, driver optimizations, or the specific workload characteristics of Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 560’s higher FP32 is likely due to its higher clock speed potential, though the base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

The memory architectures are also distinct. The Quadro 6000 features 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 has just 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GTX 560’s runs at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The GTX 560’s faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the Quadro still wins on total bandwidth and, crucially, has six times the memory capacity for large datasets.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is memory capacity: the Quadro 6000 ships with 6 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 560 has only 1024 MB. This is a 6x disparity that directly impacts the Quadro’s ability to handle large professional workloads. The bus width follows suit, with the Quadro using a 384-bit interface versus the GTX 560’s 256-bit. Bandwidth is consequently higher on the Quadro at 143.4 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s, despite the GTX 560’s faster memory clock of 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) compared to the Quadro’s 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

The compute resources differ in both count and distribution. The Quadro has 448 shading units and 48 ROPs; the GTX 560 has 336 shading units and 32 ROPs. Both have 56 TMUs. This yields different fill rates, with the Quadro achieving 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, while the GTX 560 hits 11.34 GPixel/s and 45.36 GTexel/s. The FP32 output is slightly in the GTX 560’s favor at 1,088.6 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires a 550 W power supply, with connectors of 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. The GTX 560 has a TDP of 150 W, a 450 W suggested PSU, and 2x 6-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Quadro is longer at 248 mm (9.8 inches) versus the GTX 560’s 210 mm (8.3 inches). The Quadro also has a listed height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GTX 560’s height is not specified. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the GTX 560 provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Release dates and market positioning are distinct. The Quadro 6000 launched on 2010-12-09, with a listed launch MSRP of 4,399 USD, while the GTX 560 launched later on 2011-05-16 at 199 USD. The production status for both is end-of-life. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is Quadro Kepler; the GTX 560’s predecessor is GeForce 400, and its successor is GeForce 600.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Quadro 6000 outperforms the GTX 560 in Geekbench OpenCL by 8.7%, securing the only win in the head-to-head comparison. This is consistent with its higher percentile ranking (47th vs. 45th) and its superior memory subsystem. The Quadro’s 6 GB memory capacity and 384-bit bus are decisive advantages for professional applications that demand large working sets.

However, the GTX 560 is not without merit. Its higher FP32 throughput (1,088.6 GFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and faster texture fill rate (45.36 GTexel/s vs. 32.14 GTexel/s) suggest it may excel in texture-bound scenarios, even if the overall compute benchmark favors the Quadro. The GTX 560 also requires less power (150 W vs. 204 W) and a smaller PSU (450 W vs. 550 W), making it a more accessible option for a standard desktop.

The verdict hinges on workload. For professional compute, visualization, or any task that benefits from large memory and high bandwidth, the Quadro 6000 is the data-backed choice. Its 8.7% lead in the compute benchmark, combined with 6 GB of VRAM, positions it as the more capable card for serious work. For a gamer or light user, the GTX 560’s lower power draw and smaller physical footprint are practical advantages, but the performance gap is real. The data does not support the GTX 560 outperforming the Quadro in any tested metric; it only wins on efficiency and cost of entry.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro 6000: The Quadro wins in compute-intensive workloads, as demonstrated by its 9,846 OpenCL score versus the GTX 560’s 9,058. It is the better choice for tasks that require large memory allocations, given its 6 GB frame buffer versus 1 GB. Its higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s) and 48 ROPs make it suited for high-resolution rendering and multi-display professional setups. The additional DisplayPort outputs (2x) versus the GTX 560’s mini-HDMI also favor multi-monitor professional environments. Its higher TDP (204 W) and larger size (248 mm) are trade-offs for this capability.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560: The GTX 560 wins on texture throughput, with 45.36 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 32.14 GTexel/s. This could translate to better performance in texture-heavy gaming or shader workloads, despite losing the overall compute benchmark. It also has a higher FP32 rating (1,088.6 GFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS), suggesting theoretical peak compute is slightly higher. The GTX 560 is more power-efficient, with a 150 W TDP and 450 W PSU requirement, making it easier to integrate into existing systems. Its shorter length (210 mm) fits in smaller cases. For users prioritizing these attributes over raw memory capacity and compute scores, the GTX 560 holds a niche.