NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000

The GeForce GTX 950A edges out the Quadro 6000 in the single OpenCL benchmark available, scoring 10,273 to the Quadro's 9,846, a 4.3% advantage. However, these two cards represent fundamentally different eras and design philosophies: the GTX 950A is a 2015 Maxwell-based mobile module, while the Quadro 6000 is a 2010 Fermi-based professional workstation card. The data shows a near-statistical tie in raw compute, with the GTX 950A holding a slight edge, but the Quadro 6000 counters with far more memory and bandwidth. The verdict depends entirely on workload and platform constraints, not on overwhelming performance supremacy in either direction.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the GTX 950A is the faster card in OpenCL compute, with its 10,273 score placing it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs, just 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400). The Quadro 6000's 9,846 score sits at the 47th percentile, 0.1% ahead of the Quadro M2000M (9,832) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803). In direct comparison, the GTX 950A wins the only head-to-head test by 4.3%, which is a meaningful but not decisive margin.

For users prioritizing raw compute per watt, the GTX 950A is the clear choice: its 75 W TDP versus the Quadro 6000's 204 W TDP means the GTX 950A delivers comparable performance at roughly one-third the power draw. For users needing large frame buffers and high memory bandwidth, the Quadro 6000's 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth is in a different league than the GTX 950A's 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 32.03 GB/s. If the workload fits in 2 GB and doesn't stress memory bandwidth, the GTX 950A is the better pick. If memory capacity or bandwidth is the bottleneck, the Quadro 6000 is the only rational choice despite its lower compute score.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 950A is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The Quadro 6000 uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip, built on TSMC's 40 nm process, with 3,100 million transistors spread across a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.9 million transistors per mm². The process node advantage alone explains much of the efficiency gap: 28 nm versus 40 nm means the GTX 950A achieves more compute with fewer transistors and far less power.

The shading unit counts differ significantly: the GTX 950A has 640 shading units, while the Quadro 6000 has 448. However, the Quadro 6000 counters with 56 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus the GTX 950A's 40, and 48 raster output units (ROPs) versus just 16 on the GTX 950A. This configuration suggests the Quadro 6000 was designed for higher fill-rate workloads, despite its lower raw shader count. Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 32.03 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s — over 4.4 times the bandwidth. The Quadro's memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the GTX 950A's memory runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Quadro's wider bus compensates for its lower clock speed, resulting in vastly superior memory throughput.

The GTX 950A is a power-efficient MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, while the Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card with a 204 W TDP requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 550 W power supply. The GTX 950A uses the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 950A adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 6000 lists no Vulkan support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 950A scores 10,273 against the Quadro 6000's 9,846, giving the GTX 950A a 4.3% victory. While this is a single data point, it aligns with the broader benchmark context: the GTX 950A's average score of 10,273 places it in the 48th percentile, while the Quadro 6000's 9,846 puts it at the 47th percentile. The GTX 950A sits just 0.9% below the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and 2% above the AMD Radeon R9 M375, while the Quadro 6000 sits 0.1% above the Quadro M2000M and 1.1% below the GeForce GTX 870M.

The 4.3% delta in the head-to-head is modest, but the underlying architectural advantages suggest the gap could widen or narrow depending on workload. The GTX 950A's higher shading unit count (640 vs 448) and much higher FP32 throughput (1,438.7 GFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) explain its compute advantage. The Quadro 6000's higher texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s vs 44.96 GTexel/s — wait, the GTX 950A is actually higher here) and pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 17.98 GPixel/s — again, GTX 950A is higher) show that the GTX 950A wins on nearly every throughput metric except memory bandwidth. The Quadro 6000's only clear wins are memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and TMU count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 950A | Quadro 6000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 640 | 448 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| FP32 | 1,438.7 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 17.98 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.96 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.03 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps) |

| TDP | 75 W | 204 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

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

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

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

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2010-12-09 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 4,399 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 950A scores 10,273 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9,846 for the Quadro 6000, a 4.3% advantage. The GTX 950A also has higher FP32 throughput at 1,438.7 GFLOPS compared to 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus delivering 143.4 GB/s, while the GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus delivering only 32.03 GB/s. The Quadro's bandwidth advantage is roughly 4.5 times.

Q: Why is the GTX 950A more power-efficient?

A: The GTX 950A uses a 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 12.6M/mm². It has a 75 W TDP. The Quadro 6000 uses a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a 204 W TDP. The newer process node and lower transistor count enable the GTX 950A to deliver comparable performance at nearly a third of the power.

Q: Can the Quadro 6000 handle larger datasets?

A: Yes, the Quadro 6000's 6 GB frame buffer versus the GTX 950A's 2 GB means it can hold significantly more data in video memory. For workloads exceeding 2 GB, the Quadro 6000 is the only option; for workloads under 2 GB, the GTX 950A's compute advantage matters more.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 950A additionally supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 lists no Vulkan support. This gives the GTX 950A an edge in modern cross-platform applications.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The GTX 950A is an MXM module (MXM-B 3.0 interface) with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, making it suitable for laptops and compact systems. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card measuring 248 mm in length, requiring both 6-pin and 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W power supply.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950A wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 10,273 versus 9,846, combined with higher FP32 (1,438.7 vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS), higher pixel rate (17.98 vs 16.07 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (44.96 vs 32.14 GTexel/s), makes it the better choice for general-purpose compute, shader-heavy graphics, and any workload that fits within its 2 GB memory limit. Its 75 W TDP and MXM form factor also make it the only viable choice for power-constrained or compact systems. The GTX 950A's Vulkan 1.4 support adds future-proofing for modern applications.

The Quadro 6000 wins in memory-bound scenarios. Its 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus delivers 143.4 GB/s — more than four times the GTX 950A's bandwidth. This makes it the better choice for large textures, high-resolution rendering, deep learning inference with large models, or any workload where memory capacity is the limiting factor. Its 56 TMUs and 48 ROPs (versus 40 and 16, respectively) also give it an advantage in fill-rate-heavy workloads, despite its lower overall compute score. The Quadro 6000's display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video) make it a more practical workstation card for multi-monitor setups, while the GTX 950A's outputs depend entirely on the portable device it's installed in.

In the end, the GTX 950A is the better all-around performer in compute, but the Quadro 6000's massive memory advantage makes it irreplaceable for specific professional workloads. The 4.3% benchmark delta is the smallest meaningful gap between these two cards; the memory subsystem differences are what truly separate them.