NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and GeForce GTX 675MX as two very different solutions from the same vendor, separated by architecture, generation, and intended use case. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, the GeForce GTX 675MX wins outright. The GTX 675MX scores 10,723 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.2% higher than the Quadro 6000’s 9,846. That advantage is modest but consistent with the GTX 675MX’s higher raw compute ceiling: 1,255.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro. However, the Quadro 6000 is not without its own merits, particularly in memory capacity and interface breadth.

Buyers should choose the GeForce GTX 675MX if their priority is raw OpenCL throughput and lower power draw, as it delivers superior compute performance at 100 W TDP versus 204 W for the Quadro, and it does so with a newer Kepler architecture. The GTX 675MX also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely. Conversely, the Quadro 6000 is the pick for workloads that demand large frame buffer capacity and legacy professional connectivity. Its 6 GB GDDR5 memory dwarfs the GTX 675MX’s 2 GB, and its 384-bit bus provides 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 115.2 GB/s on the GTX 675MX. The Quadro’s dual-slot design, 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort plus 1x S-Video outputs, and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface suit fixed workstation installations, while the GTX 675MX’s MXM-B (3.0) form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs target mobile systems.

In terms of overall standing, the two cards sit close in the database’s percentile rankings. The Quadro 6000 lands at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 675MX sits at the 43rd. That 4-point gap is small, but it reflects the Quadro’s slightly better aggregate position despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. The average benchmark score tells a starker story: the Quadro 6000 averages 9,846, while the GTX 675MX averages 8,427 across all its recorded benchmarks, dragged down by a 6,131 Geekbench Metal result. For users who rely on OpenCL specifically, the GTX 675MX is the better performer; for general-purpose compute across multiple APIs, the Quadro 6000’s single but consistent OpenCL score keeps it competitive.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The GeForce GTX 675MX wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,723 versus 9,846 for the Quadro 6000, a margin of 8.2%.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 675MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GeForce GTX 675MX supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175. The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 is rated at 204 W, while the GTX 675MX is rated at 100 W, making the latter significantly more power-efficient on paper.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The Quadro 6000 ranks at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 675MX ranks at the 43rd percentile.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9,846, while the GTX 675MX averages 8,427, reflecting its weaker Metal result of 6,131 alongside its stronger OpenCL score of 10,723.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations within NVIDIA’s lineup. The Quadro 6000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 675MX uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process shrink is significant: the GTX 675MX packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². The Quadro 6000, by contrast, houses 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, yielding a density of only 5.9 million per mm². The Kepler chip is not only smaller but also denser, reflecting two generations of manufacturing improvement.

The compute layout differs sharply. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 675MX has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having more than double the shading units and more TMUs, the GTX 675MX’s fill rates tell a mixed story: its pixel rate is 13.08 GPixel/s (lower than the Quadro’s 16.07 GPixel/s) due to fewer ROPs, but its texture rate is 52.32 GTexel/s, well above the Quadro’s 32.14 GTexel/s. The GTX 675MX also leads in FP32 throughput at 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, confirming that Kepler’s wider shader array wins for compute-heavy tasks.

Neither GPU features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The Quadro 6000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi generation (x000 series) and lists the Quadro FX Tesla as its predecessor and Quadro Kepler as its successor. The GTX 675MX is part of the GeForce 600M generation, succeeding the GeForce 500M and preceding the GeForce 700M. The Quadro’s release date of December 2010 places it nearly two years before the GTX 675MX’s September 2012 launch. Both are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The database records several fields where the two cards diverge. The process node differs: 40 nm for the Quadro 6000 versus 28 nm for the GTX 675MX. Transistor count is higher on the GTX 675MX (3,540 million versus 3,100 million), while die size is smaller (294 mm² versus 529 mm²). Transistor density is 12.0M / mm² on the GTX 675MX versus 5.9M / mm² on the Quadro.

Memory specifications differ across the board: the Quadro 6000 offers 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 675MX offers 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 115.2 GB/s. Memory clock also varies, with the Quadro at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) and the GTX 675MX at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The GTX 675MX’s higher memory clock does not compensate for its narrower bus, resulting in lower overall bandwidth.

Compute unit counts differ: 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the Quadro versus 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the GTX 675MX. Pixel rate favors the Quadro at 16.07 GPixel/s versus 13.08 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the GTX 675MX at 52.32 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors the GTX 675MX at 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs also diverge: the Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP, dual-slot width, requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply. The GTX 675MX has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 675MX uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs differ completely: the Quadro provides 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, whereas the GTX 675MX’s outputs are marked as portable device dependent. API support is identical for DirectX (12, 11_0) and OpenGL (4.6), but the GTX 675MX adds Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro lacks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it goes to the GeForce GTX 675MX. The GTX 675MX scores 10,723 against the Quadro 6000’s 9,846, a delta of 8.2% in favor of the mobile chip. That result aligns with the raw FP32 figures: the GTX 675MX produces 1,255.7 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 22.2% theoretical advantage that does not translate fully into the OpenCL score, likely due to memory bandwidth and driver overhead. Still, the GTX 675MX’s win is clear.

Beyond the direct test, the nearest rivals provide context. The Quadro 6000’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, which averages 9,832, a mere 0.1% behind. The AMD FirePro W5000 sits 0.4% behind at 9,803, and the GeForce GTX 1070 trails by 0.7% at 9,780. On the other side, the GeForce GTX 870M leads the Quadro by 1.1% with a score of 9,959. This tight cluster around 9,800 to 9,960 shows the Quadro 6000 performing at the level of mid-range GPUs from several generations later, evidence of its balanced design.

The GTX 675MX’s nearest rivals paint a different picture. Its average score of 8,427 is dragged down by the Metal benchmark of 6,131, but its OpenCL score of 10,723 stands alone. The AMD Radeon 880M averages 8,436, just 0.1% above the GTX 675MX. The NVIDIA GeForce MX330 is 0.4% ahead at 8,458, and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M is also 0.4% ahead at 8,462. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X trails by 1.2% at 8,325. Notably, none of these rivals approach the GTX 675MX’s OpenCL peak, which suggests that its average is suppressed by the Metal result rather than by weak compute capability.

The database shows one win for the GTX 675MX and zero for the Quadro 6000 in direct competition, but the broader context matters. The Quadro 6000’s 47th percentile ranking exceeds the GTX 675MX’s 43rd, and its average score of 9,846 is higher than the GTX 675MX’s 8,427. The GTX 675MX is the better OpenCL performer, but the Quadro 6000 is the more consistent overall scorer. For users focused on a single API, the choice is clear; for those weighing overall capability, the Quadro’s larger memory, wider bus, and higher percentile make it the safer all-around option despite losing the head-to-head test.