GPU Comparison
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
Quadro K6000
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000
The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 are both Kepler-generation parts built on the same GK110 silicon, yet they target entirely different use cases. The data shows a clear split: the GTX 780 wins the single head-to-head test that favors its higher base clock, while the Quadro K6000 takes the other two benchmarks with a wider memory pool and more compute units. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the GTX 780 at 19,164 and the Quadro K6000 at 19,030, placing them at the 64th and 63rd percentiles of all GPUs respectively. This makes them direct performance rivals in raw compute, but their architectural configurations tell a different story about where each card belongs.
Where Each One Wins
The GTX 780’s victory comes in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 10,114 against the Quadro K6000’s 7,932, a 27.5% advantage. This is a significant margin and points to the GTX 780’s higher base clock of 863 MHz versus 797 MHz on the Quadro. For workloads that are sensitive to clock speed rather than sheer core count, the GTX 780 has the edge. The data shows the GTX 780 also has a higher pixel rate of 43.30 GPixel/s compared to 54.12 GPixel/s on the Quadro, but that is a spec, not a benchmark win.
The Quadro K6000 counters with wins in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. In OpenCL, it scores 23,749 against the GTX 780’s 22,863, a 3.7% lead. In Vulkan, it scores 25,409 against 24,514, a 3.5% lead. These are smaller margins than the GTX 780’s Metal win, but they are consistent across two different APIs. The Quadro’s advantage here aligns with its 2,880 shading units and 240 texture mapping units, versus 2,304 and 192 on the GTX 780. More cores and more texture units translate to better throughput in compute-heavy and graphics-API workloads that scale with parallelism.
The benchmark distribution is 1 win for the GTX 780 and 2 wins for the Quadro K6000. However, the magnitude of the GTX 780’s Metal win is far larger than the Quadro’s margins in the other two tests. This suggests that the GTX 780 is the better choice for Metal-specific applications, while the Quadro K6000 offers broader consistency across OpenCL and Vulkan. The average scores being within 0.7% of each other reinforce that neither card is a runaway winner in overall compute, but the specific API mix will determine which one is faster for a given task.
Architecture Differences
Both cards use the GK110 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with the same 7,080 million transistors and a die size of 561 mm². The transistor density is identical at 12.6M / mm². The fundamental difference is that the Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B variant, which enables a fuller configuration. The Quadro has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the GTX 780 has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and the same 48 ROPs. The Quadro’s extra 576 shading units and 48 TMUs are the primary reason it posts higher texture and pixel rates: 216.5 GTexel/s and 54.12 GPixel/s versus 173.2 GTexel/s and 43.30 GPixel/s.
Memory is another major divider. The GTX 780 comes with 3 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K6000 ships with 12 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 384-bit bus and achieve the same 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, and both run memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s fourfold increase in memory capacity is a professional-workstation feature, allowing larger datasets to stay resident on the GPU. The clock speeds differ slightly: the GTX 780 has a base of 863 MHz and boost of 902 MHz, while the Quadro K6000 has a lower base of 797 MHz but the same boost of 902 MHz. The Quadro compensates for its lower base clock with more cores, yielding a higher FP32 throughput of 5.196 TFLOPS versus 4.156 TFLOPS.
The power profiles also diverge. The GTX 780 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Quadro K6000 has a lower TDP of 225 W, uses 2x 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with the same physical length of 267 mm and height of 111 mm. The display outputs differ: the GTX 780 offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro K6000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GTX 780’s DirectX 12 (11_0), a minor API-level difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Geekbench Metal test is the GTX 780’s strongest showing. Its score of 10,114 beats the Quadro K6000’s 7,932 by 27.5%. This is the largest delta in any test and reflects the GTX 780’s higher base clock. The Quadro’s lower base clock of 797 MHz appears to hurt it in Metal, where the workload may not fully utilize its extra shading units. For users on Apple platforms or Metal-centric applications, the GTX 780 is clearly the faster card.
The Geekbench OpenCL test flips the result. The Quadro K6000 scores 23,749, edging out the GTX 780’s 22,863 by 3.7%. The Quadro’s 2,880 shading units and 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 throughput provide the compute headroom needed for OpenCL workloads. The GTX 780’s 4.156 TFLOPS is not enough to overcome the core-count deficit. This is a close race, but the Quadro’s higher theoretical peak performance translates into a measurable win.
The Geekbench Vulkan test follows a similar pattern. The Quadro K6000 scores 25,409 against the GTX 780’s 24,514, a 3.5% lead. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from raw shading unit count, and the Quadro’s 576 extra units make the difference. Across the three tests, the GTX 780 wins one by a landslide, while the Quadro wins two by modest margins. The average benchmark scores confirm the parity: the GTX 780 sits at 19,164, just 0.7% above the Quadro’s 19,030. In terms of nearest rivals, the GTX 780 is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA TITAN Xp and 0.4% ahead of the Tesla K20m, while the Quadro K6000 is exactly level with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 and 0.1% behind the RTX 4050 Mobile.
FAQ
Q: Which card has more shading units?
A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 has 2,304. The Quadro also has 240 TMUs versus 192 on the GTX 780.
Q: What is the memory capacity difference?
A: The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 780 has 3 GB. Both use a 384-bit bus and deliver the same 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: Which card wins in Geekbench Metal?
A: The GTX 780 wins decisively with a score of 10,114 compared to the Quadro K6000’s 7,932, a 27.5% advantage.
Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?
A: The GTX 780 averages 19,164, and the Quadro K6000 averages 19,030. The GTX 780 is 0.7% ahead, and the Quadro is 0% from the AMD Radeon RX 6600.
Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card?
A: The Quadro K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS FP32, while the GTX 780 delivers 4.156 TFLOPS. This is despite the GTX 780 having a higher base clock of 863 MHz versus 797 MHz.
Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?
A: The Quadro K6000 has a pixel rate of 54.12 GPixel/s, while the GTX 780 has 43.30 GPixel/s. The Quadro’s texture rate is also higher at 216.5 GTexel/s versus 173.2 GTexel/s.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear split based on workload. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 is the pick for Metal-based applications, where its 27.5% lead in Geekbench Metal is the single largest performance gap in this comparison. Its higher base clock and lower core count are better suited to that API’s characteristics. It also matches the Quadro K6000 in average score, making it a viable compute option despite its smaller memory pool.
The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the better choice for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, where it wins by 3.7% and 3.5% respectively. Its 12 GB of memory and 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it the more capable card for large datasets and parallel compute. The 4x memory capacity is a decisive factor for professional use cases that require holding large assets on the GPU.
For users who prioritize a single API, the GTX 780 wins in Metal, and the Quadro K6000 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan. The GTX 780’s launch MSRP was 649 USD, while the Quadro K6000’s launch MSRP was 5,265 USD. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K6000’s lower TDP of 225 W versus 250 W and its 2x 6-pin power requirement make it slightly easier to integrate into existing systems. The GTX 780’s higher average score of 19,164 versus 19,030 is negligible, so the decision hinges on the specific benchmark and memory needs. Choose the GTX 780 for Metal, the Quadro K6000 for everything else.