NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a decisive victory for the newer mobile part. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 12,769 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 manages 9,846 points. That is a 29.7% advantage for the GTX 780M, a substantial gap that reflects the generational leap between the two architectures.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 780M's average score across all tested workloads is 11,261, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 at 11,228 (just 0.3% behind), the AMD FirePro W4300 at 11,225 (also 0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.6% behind). The GTX 780M also posts strong single-test results: 8,319 in Geekbench Metal and 12,696 in Geekbench Vulkan, showing consistent performance across different APIs.

The Quadro 6000, by contrast, sits at the 47th percentile with an average score of 9,846. Its nearest rival list is interesting because it includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959, which actually beats the Quadro by 1.1%. Other close competitors include the Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.1% behind), the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.4% behind), and the GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% behind). This places the Quadro 6000 in a performance tier that is clearly lower than the GTX 780M's, despite the Quadro's professional pedigree.

The delta between the two cards is consistent across the board. In OpenCL, the only shared test, the GTX 780M's lead is 29.7%. Given that the GTX 780M also has a higher average score overall (11,261 vs 9,846), the pattern is clear: the GTX 780M is the faster card in compute workloads. The Quadro 6000's single benchmark result is its only data point, so there is no multi-test average to compare, but that lone score is enough to establish the hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11,261, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 averages 9,846. The GTX 780M sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Quadro 6000 is at the 47th percentile.

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

A: The GTX 780M scores 12,769 in OpenCL, beating the Quadro 6000's 9,846 by 29.7%. This is the only head-to-head benchmark test available for both cards.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 780M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus but achieves lower bandwidth at 143.4 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, compared to 448 on the Quadro 6000. The GTX 780M also has 128 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro 6000 has 56 TMUs and 48 ROPs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card with a 204 W TDP, requiring a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested 550 W power supply.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed, while the GTX 780M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent completely different generations of NVIDIA GPU design. The GTX 780M is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip with the older Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a larger 40 nm node. This process shrink is significant: the GTX 780M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 5.9M / mm².

The compute capabilities diverge sharply. The GTX 780M delivers 2.448 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro 6000 manages 1,027.7 GFLOPS (roughly 1.03 TFLOPS). Pixel fill rates tell a similar story: 25.50 GPixel/s for the GTX 780M versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Quadro 6000. Texture fill rate is where the gap becomes enormous — 102.0 GTexel/s for the GTX 780M versus 32.14 GTexel/s for the Quadro 6000, a 3.2x difference.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The GTX 780M uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 running at 5 Gbps effective, yielding 160.0 GB/s. The Quadro 6000 has a wider 384-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5 at 3 Gbps effective, but its bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s is actually lower. Clock speeds are interesting as well: the GTX 780M has a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost up to 797 MHz, while the Quadro 6000 lists no base or boost clocks but runs memory at 747 MHz.

Feature support differences are notable. The GTX 780M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support at all. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 780M is a mobile MXM module with bus interface MXM-B (3.0), while the Quadro 6000 is a desktop dual-slot card using PCIe 2.0 x16. The Quadro 6000's display outputs include 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, whereas the GTX 780M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M. Its 29.7% lead in OpenCL, higher average benchmark score, and superior specifications across nearly every metric make it the faster card. The Quadro 6000's only advantages are its larger 6 GB memory pool, wider 384-bit bus, and higher ROP count (48 vs 32). However, these do not translate into better benchmark results.

For mobile users or anyone needing a compact MXM module, the GTX 780M is the obvious choice. It delivers nearly 2.5 TFLOPS of FP32 compute in a 122 W package, which is remarkable given the Quadro 6000's 204 W TDP. The GTX 780M also has modern API support including Vulkan, which the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely.

For desktop workstation users who need 6 GB of VRAM and a PCIe 2.0 x16 form factor, the Quadro 6000 might still have a place. Its 384-bit memory bus and higher ROP count could benefit specific workloads that are sensitive to memory capacity or rasterization throughput. But the benchmark evidence shows it is significantly slower in general compute tasks.

The Quadro 6000's launch MSRP was 4,399 USD, which was a premium workstation price at its release. The GTX 780M has no listed launch MSRP, but its performance profile suggests it offers a better compute-per-watt ratio. For anyone choosing between these two today, the GTX 780M is the faster card in the only benchmark they share, and its architectural advantages make it the better investment for compute workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 529 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 771 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 797 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 5 Gbps effective | 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,536 | 448 |

| TMUs | 128 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 25.50 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 102.0 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.448 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 122 W | 204 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2010-12-09 |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 780M wins in every benchmark category where both cards have data. Its 29.7% lead in OpenCL is the headline result, but its architectural advantages suggest it would dominate in any compute-heavy task. The 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than double the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, meaning the GTX 780M is better suited for general-purpose GPU computing, machine learning inference, and any workload that leverages shading units or texture units. The 102.0 GTexel/s texture rate is particularly strong for graphics rendering.

The GTX 780M also wins in power efficiency. It delivers higher performance at 122 W compared to the Quadro 6000's 204 W, making it the better choice for thermally constrained environments like laptops or small-form-factor systems. Its MXM form factor and lack of power connectors make it easier to integrate into portable devices, and its Vulkan support opens up modern API compatibility.

The Quadro 6000's strengths are narrower but still relevant. Its 6 GB of VRAM is 50% larger than the GTX 780M's 4 GB, which matters for workloads that need to hold large datasets in memory, such as certain rendering or simulation tasks. The 384-bit memory bus, despite lower effective bandwidth, provides better memory parallelism in some access patterns. The higher ROP count (48 vs 32) gives it an edge in pixel-heavy rasterization workloads, and the 16.07 GPixel/s pixel rate, while lower than the GTX 780M's, is not drastically behind.

For professional workstation users, the Quadro 6000's display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video) are more versatile than the GTX 780M's portable-device-dependent outputs. The dual-slot desktop form factor with PCIe 2.0 x16 also makes it easier to install in standard desktop workstations. But these advantages come with a 204 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply, which is a significant power draw.

In practical terms, the GTX 780M is the better card for most workloads. It is faster in compute, more power-efficient, and supports modern APIs. The Quadro 6000 only makes sense if you specifically need 6 GB of VRAM, a desktop PCIe form factor, or the specific display output configuration it offers. For everything else, the GTX 780M's benchmark results and specification sheet make it the clear choice.