NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9846, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M has an average score of 8135. The Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the GTX 950M's 42nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro 6000 scores 9846 against the GTX 950M's 9745, giving the Quadro a 1% lead. This is a narrow margin, and both cards fall within the performance cluster of their nearest rivals.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000's closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9832, 0.1% behind), AMD FirePro W5000 (9803, 0.4% behind), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9780, 0.7% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959, 1.1% ahead). For the GTX 950M, the rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, 0.1% behind), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167, 0.4% ahead), NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8099, 0.4% behind), and NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080, 0.7% behind).

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a 384-bit memory bus and delivers 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory. The GTX 950M uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of DDR3 memory, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: The GeForce GTX 950M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed in the database. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires a 550 W suggested power supply with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The GTX 950M has a TDP of 75 W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark records show a single head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro 6000 wins by 1%. That narrow victory, however, masks a broader split in design intent and workload suitability.

The Quadro 6000 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output of 1,027.7 GFLOPS, while lower than the GTX 950M's 1,438.7 GFLOPS on paper, is paired with a much larger memory subsystem. The 384-bit bus and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth give it a decisive advantage in memory-bound professional workloads. The 6 GB frame buffer, double the GTX 950M's 4 GB, allows larger datasets to reside on the card without spilling to system memory. Its 48 ROPs and 56 TMUs, compared to the GTX 950M's 16 ROPs and 40 TMUs, indicate stronger fill-rate and texture throughput for rendering tasks that stress these units.

The GTX 950M wins in efficiency and portability. Its 75 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the Quadro 6000's 204 W TDP and dual-slot footprint demand a desktop workstation with robust cooling. The GTX 950M also supports Vulkan 1.4, which opens the door to modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the Quadro 6000 cannot access. Its higher shading unit count (640 vs 448) and higher texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) suggest better performance in shader-heavy workloads that do not depend on memory bandwidth.

The data indicates a clear split: the Quadro 6000 is built for precision, memory capacity, and sustained throughput in professional applications, while the GTX 950M is engineered for mobility, power efficiency, and modern API compatibility. Each card wins in its intended environment, and the 1% OpenCL delta reflects how close their raw compute scores are despite the architectural divide.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architecture families. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip on the Fermi architecture, a 40 nm design fabricated by TSMC with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The GTX 950M uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, a 28 nm process from TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Transistor density tells the story of process maturity. The Fermi chip packs 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Maxwell chip achieves 12.6 million per square millimeter. The newer 28 nm process allows the GTX 950M to fit more transistors per area despite having fewer total transistors, and the smaller die reduces manufacturing cost and power draw.

The compute layouts diverge significantly. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Fermi card allocates more silicon to rasterization and memory output, while the Maxwell card emphasizes shader count. The Quadro's 48 ROPs are triple the GTX 950M's 16, reinforcing its strength in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Memory architecture reflects the professional versus consumer split. The Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 950M uses a 128-bit bus with DDR3. The GDDR5 memory operates at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 950M's 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The wider bus gives the Quadro 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, roughly five times the GTX 950M's 28.80 GB/s.

API support differs on Vulkan. The Quadro 6000 lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan entry. The GTX 950M adds Vulkan 1.4 to those two. Both support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions, so the Maxwell card's Vulkan capability is the only API-level advantage.

Power delivery and physical design reflect their environments. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors with a 550 W suggested PSU. The GTX 950M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The Quadro's 248 mm length and 111 mm height make it a desktop workstation component, while the GTX 950M's dimensions are listed as portable-device dependent.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 40 nm for the Quadro 6000 versus 28 nm for the GTX 950M. Transistor count is 3,100 million versus 1,870 million. Die size is 529 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds show a divergence in configuration. The Quadro 6000 has no listed base or boost clock, with memory at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 950M has a base clock of 993 MHz, a boost clock of 1124 MHz, and memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Memory subsystems are starkly different: 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth for the Quadro 6000, versus 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth for the GTX 950M.

Compute unit counts differ: 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs for the Quadro 6000, against 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the GTX 950M. Pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 17.98 GPixel/s for the GTX 950M. Texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 44.96 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specs diverge: TDP is 204 W versus 75 W. The Quadro 6000 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU; the GTX 950M is an IGP with no connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the GTX 950M. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video for the Quadro, versus portable-device dependent for the GTX 950M.

Release dates are separated by over four years: the Quadro 6000 launched on 2010-12-09, and the GTX 950M on 2015-03-12. Their generations reflect this gap: Quadro Fermi (x000) versus GeForce 900M. The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD; the GTX 950M has no launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 6000 scores 9846, and the GTX 950M scores 9745, a 1% delta in favor of the Quadro. This is the only direct comparison available, and it shows the two cards performing nearly identically in this compute test.

The context from nearest rivals is instructive. The Quadro 6000's OpenCL score of 9846 places it within 1.1% of the GeForce GTX 870M (9959) and just 0.1% ahead of the Quadro M2000M (9832). The GTX 950M's OpenCL score of 9745 is not directly listed in its nearest rivals, but its average benchmark score of 8135 places it near the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, 0.1% behind), the GeForce GTX 980 (8167, 0.4% ahead), the GeForce 945M (8099, 0.4% behind), and the GRID K2 (8080, 0.7% behind).

The GTX 950M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6525, which the Quadro 6000 cannot match because it has no Vulkan support. This is not a head-to-head comparison in the strict sense, but it highlights an API capability gap that matters for modern workloads.

In terms of wins, the Quadro 6000 takes 1 win in the head-to-head table, and the GTX 950M takes 0. The 1% OpenCL margin is small enough to be within run-to-run variance, but the recorded data shows the Quadro 6000 ahead.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for each audience. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is the choice for users who need memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer, 384-bit bus, and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth are in a different class from the GTX 950M's 4 GB DDR3 and 28.80 GB/s. The 48 ROPs versus 16 ROPs further reinforce its suitability for high-resolution rendering and heavy rasterization. Its 47th percentile ranking and average score of 9846 place it among workstation-class GPUs like the Quadro M2000M and AMD FirePro W5000.

The GeForce GTX 950M is the choice for portable systems and API-modern workloads. Its 75 W TDP requires no external power connectors, making it viable for laptops where the Quadro 6000's dual-slot, 204 W design cannot fit. Its Vulkan 1.4 support gives it access to a modern graphics API that the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely. The higher shading unit count (640 vs 448) and texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) suggest stronger shader-bound performance in games and compute tasks that do not depend on memory bandwidth.

The 1% OpenCL lead for the Quadro 6000 is the only direct benchmark comparison, and it is narrow. The real differentiators are architectural: the Quadro 6000 wins on memory, bandwidth, and ROP throughput, while the GTX 950M wins on power efficiency, transistor density, and API support. Users who prioritize workstation rendering, large datasets, or fill-rate-bound rendering should select the Quadro 6000. Users who prioritize mobility, modern API compatibility, shader throughput, or shader-bound workloads should select the GTX 950M. The database shows two competent performers in their respective domains, with the Quadro 6000 holding a marginal edge in the single recorded head-to-head test.