NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 represent two distinct philosophies from the same company, separated by a generation of GPU architecture. The data places the Quadro 6000 as a professional workstation card from the Fermi era, while the GTX 760 is a consumer gaming card built on the newer Kepler design. Benchmark results from the FACT PACK show a clear performance hierarchy, but the underlying specifications reveal a more nuanced story about what each card was designed to accomplish.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 scores 11,299 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 trails with 9,846 points. This represents a 12.9% advantage for the GTX 760, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput. The GTX 760 wins the only shared benchmark in the dataset, giving it a 1-0 record in head-to-head wins.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro 6000’s average score of 9,846 places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.1% behind), the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.4% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% behind). Interestingly, the GeForce GTX 870M sits just above it at 9,959, a 1.1% advantage. This cluster of scores suggests the Quadro 6000 is competitive with mid-range GPUs from several generations later, despite its older architecture.

The GTX 760’s average benchmark score is 9,458, which places it at the 46th percentile. Its nearest rivals are a mix of high-end and mid-range cards: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK at 9,474 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M380 at 9,313 (1.6% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9,302 (1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9,294 (1.8% behind). The GTX 760 also has additional benchmark results in Metal and Vulkan, scoring 4,524 and 12,551 respectively, though these metrics have no direct comparison in the Quadro 6000’s data.

The deltaPct values reveal a curious inversion. The Quadro 6000’s closest rival, the Quadro M2000M, is nearly identical in score, yet the GTX 760 beats the Quadro 6000 by a wide margin in their direct comparison. This suggests that the Quadro 6000’s compute capabilities are competitive with newer mid-range hardware, but the GTX 760’s newer architecture gives it a decisive edge in OpenCL workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760 wins the only direct benchmark, which suggests it holds an advantage in general compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 11,299 is significantly higher than the Quadro 6000’s 9,846, and this gap likely translates to better performance in compute-heavy applications. The GTX 760 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which gives it access to modern graphics APIs that the Quadro 6000 cannot use. Its additional benchmark scores in Metal (4,524) and Vulkan (12,551) indicate it can handle a variety of modern workloads.

The Quadro 6000, while losing the OpenCL comparison, has strengths that are not captured in the benchmark data. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory is three times the GTX 760’s 2 GB, which is critical for large datasets in professional applications like scientific visualization or complex 3D rendering. The Quadro 6000 also features a 384-bit memory bus compared to the GTX 760’s 256-bit bus, which affects how efficiently it can access that memory. Its display outputs — 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video — are tailored for multi-monitor professional setups, whereas the GTX 760 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 for consumer displays.

The specification differences point to a clear use-case split. The GTX 760 excels in raw compute throughput, as evidenced by its benchmark victory. The Quadro 6000, despite its lower compute scores, offers features that matter for specific professional workflows, particularly those requiring large memory capacities. The data does not include gaming benchmarks, but the GTX 760’s higher texture rate (99.07 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (24.77 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s) suggest it would handle real-time graphics more effectively.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip, which is part of the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 760 uses the GK104 chip, part of the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is significant: the Quadro 6000’s die size is 529 mm², while the GTX 760’s is 294 mm². Despite the smaller die, the GTX 760 packs more transistors — 3,540 million versus 3,100 million — resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm² compared to 5.9M / mm² for the Quadro 6000.

The architectural differences extend to the core configuration. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The GTX 760 has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 760 has more than double the shading units and nearly double the TMUs, but fewer ROPs. The GTX 760 also has clock speeds that the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely: a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1,032 MHz. The Quadro 6000’s clock speed is not listed in the data, which makes direct clock-for-clock comparisons impossible.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, achieving 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, achieving 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760’s memory clock is 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 6000’s memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 760 compensates for its narrower bus with a much higher memory clock, resulting in superior bandwidth.

API support is another differentiator. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 760 adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely. The GTX 760 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 6000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Power consumption favors the GTX 760 at 170 W TDP versus the Quadro 6000’s 204 W, and the GTX 760 requires only a 450 W suggested PSU compared to 550 W for the Quadro 6000.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 scores 11,299 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 760 has 2 GB. The Quadro 6000 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus versus the GTX 760’s 256-bit bus.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the GTX 760 has 3,540 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed, while the GTX 760 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Which card has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The GTX 760 has a texture rate of 99.07 GTexel/s, which is significantly higher than the Quadro 6000’s 32.14 GTexel/s.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 was released on 2010-12-09, while the GTX 760 was released later on 2013-06-24.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi | Kepler |

| Chip | GF100 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 980 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1,032 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 448 | 1,152 |

| TMUs | 56 | 96 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 24.77 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 99.07 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 2.378 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 204 W | 170 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 248 mm (9.8 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2010-12-09 | 2013-06-24 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | 249 USD |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 in compute workloads, winning the only head-to-head test by 12.9%. Its higher shading unit count, faster clocks, and newer architecture give it a decisive edge in raw throughput. The GTX 760 also offers modern API support with Vulkan and a faster PCIe interface, making it the more capable card for general-purpose computing.

However, the Quadro 6000 has its own merits. Its 6 GB of memory is triple the GTX 760’s capacity, which is essential for workloads that exceed 2 GB of data. The wider 384-bit memory bus, while paired with slower clocks, provides a different memory access pattern that can be advantageous in specific professional applications. The Quadro 6000’s display outputs are also geared toward multi-monitor professional setups.

For users who need maximum compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan-accelerated tasks, the GTX 760 is the clear choice based on the data. For users who require large memory capacity and are working within the professional Quadro ecosystem, the Quadro 6000 has strengths that the benchmarks do not fully capture. The GTX 760 wins on pure performance metrics, but the Quadro 6000’s memory advantage and professional feature set make it a viable option for specific use cases. The data ultimately favors the GTX 760 for most users, but the Quadro 6000 is not without its reasons to exist.