NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 960 and Quadro 6000 come from different eras of NVIDIA's lineup, and the benchmark data reflects that starkly. The Quadro 6000 is a Fermi-generation professional card from 2010, while the GTX 960 is a Maxwell 2.0 consumer card from 2015. Their head-to-head results are surprisingly lopsided, but the story is more complex than a simple win-loss record, as the data reveals a clear generational gap in compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The GTX 960 scores 18,925 points, while the Quadro 6000 manages 9,846 points. This translates to a 48% advantage for the GTX 960. That is a massive margin, indicating that the newer Maxwell architecture is fundamentally more efficient at raw general-purpose compute tasks than the older Fermi chip. The GTX 960's score is nearly double that of the Quadro 6000. The data shows the gap is not marginal; it is a chasm.

Interestingly, the Quadro 6000's score of 9,846 places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960's average score of 9,273 places it in the 45th percentile. This is a curious inversion. Despite winning the head-to-head OpenCL test by a wide margin, the GTX 960's average benchmark score is actually lower than the Quadro 6000's. The GTX 960 has additional benchmarks in its profile, including a Geekbench Metal score of 8,773 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,231, which pull its average down. The Quadro 6000 only has the one OpenCL result. The data suggests the GTX 960 is a more versatile card across different API workloads, but its average is diluted by results from tests that the Quadro 6000 does not have entries for.

The nearest rival data for the GTX 960 shows it is tightly clustered with other cards. Its average score of 9,273 is just 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 465 (9,294) and 0.3% below the GeForce GTX 850M (9,302). It sits 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (9,221). This indicates that while the GTX 960 dominates the Quadro 6000 in OpenCL, its overall standing among all GPUs is competitive but not exceptional. The Quadro 6000, by contrast, is clustered with a different set of rivals, including the Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1% delta) and the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% delta). Its performance is essentially tied with those cards, which is remarkable for a 2010 professional part. The 48% OpenCL victory for the GTX 960 is an outlier compared to its otherwise mid-pack standing.

The Verdict

From the data, the GeForce GTX 960 is the clear winner for anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 48% lead in that specific test is the single largest performance gap in either card's profile. The GTX 960 also offers modern API support, including DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and a higher pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s. For general compute workloads, the newer card is unequivocally superior.

However, the Quadro 6000 should not be dismissed. Its placement in the 47th percentile, coupled with an average score that is higher than the GTX 960's, indicates that its single OpenCL result is a strong one. It is within 0.7% of the GeForce GTX 1070's average score, which confirms the staying power of its 448 shading units and 384-bit memory bus. The Quadro 6000 also has 6 GB of memory compared to the GTX 960's 2 GB, which is a significant advantage for large datasets. The data indicates that the Quadro 6000 is a specialist, not a generalist. It excels in specific memory-heavy tasks but falls behind in modern compute APIs.

The GTX 960 is the better all-around card based on the benchmarks. It wins the only head-to-head test, has a higher raw FP32 throughput (2.413 TFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS), and supports more modern APIs. The Quadro 6000 is a niche product that, while competitive in its single recorded test, is outclassed by a card from five years later. The verdict is for the GTX 960 for compute, but the Quadro 6000's memory capacity makes it a potential choice for specific professional workflows.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 960 wins in every measurable category except memory capacity. It has a higher average score in the head-to-head OpenCL test, a higher pixel rate (37.70 vs 16.07 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (75.39 vs 32.14 GTexel/s), and a higher FP32 performance (2.413 TFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS). It also has more shading units (1,024 vs 448) and more texture mapping units (64 vs 56). The GTX 960 is the winner for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, physics simulations, and any workload that leverages modern DirectX 12 or Vulkan features.

The Quadro 6000 wins on memory. It has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.2 GB/s. The Quadro 6000's memory advantage is substantial, offering three times the capacity. This makes it the better choice for tasks that require holding large textures, massive geometry buffers, or datasets that exceed 2 GB. Its 48 ROPs (vs 32 on the GTX 960) also suggest it may be better at certain fill-rate-limited tasks, despite the GTX 960's higher pixel rate.

The data also shows a difference in power requirements. The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply, while the GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU. This makes the GTX 960 a far more energy-efficient option. The GTX 960 also uses a single 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro 6000 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin. For system builders, the GTX 960 is the easier card to integrate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,846, compared to the GeForce GTX 960's average of 9,273.

Q: What is the performance difference in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GeForce GTX 960 scores 18,925 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 48% higher than the Quadro 6000's score of 9,846.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 have more memory than the GTX 960?

A: Yes, the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card supports the Vulkan API?

A: Only the GeForce GTX 960 supports Vulkan, with version 1.4. The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: How do the rivals compare to the Quadro 6000?

A: The Quadro 6000's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, which has an average score of 9,832, a 0.1% difference. It is also within 0.7% of the GeForce GTX 1070's average score.

Q: What are the power supply requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 requires a 550 W power supply, while the GTX 960 requires a 300 W power supply.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is the primary driver of the performance differences. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip, based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,940 million transistors onto a much smaller 228 mm² die, giving it a significantly higher density of 12.9 million per mm². The smaller, denser process node allows the GTX 960 to achieve higher performance with lower power consumption.

The memory architectures differ fundamentally. The Quadro 6000 has a 384-bit memory bus, which is wider than the GTX 960's 128-bit bus. This gives the Quadro a bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s, despite its slower memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 960 compensates with a much faster memory clock of 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), achieving 112.2 GB/s. The Quadro's wider bus is a classic professional card design for handling large memory blocks, while the GTX 960's faster clock is a consumer design for latency-sensitive tasks.

The compute units also differ. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 960 has more than double the shading units, which directly contributes to its higher FP32 throughput of 2.413 TFLOPS. The Quadro 6000's FP32 is only 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Neither card has dedicated RT or Tensor cores. The GTX 960's architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every key specification. The process node is a major difference: the Quadro 6000 is on 40 nm, while the GTX 960 is on 28 nm. This leads to a difference in transistor density, with the GTX 960 at 12.9M / mm² versus the Quadro's 5.9M / mm². Clock speeds are another separator. The Quadro 6000 has no listed base or boost clock, while the GTX 960 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the Quadro at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) and the GTX 960 at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is a significant differentiator. The Quadro 6000 offers 6 GB, while the GTX 960 offers 2 GB. The bus width also differs: 384-bit for the Quadro versus 128-bit for the GTX 960. The shading units are vastly different, with the GTX 960 having 1,024 compared to the Quadro's 448. The ROP count is higher on the Quadro (48 vs 32), but the pixel and texture rates are higher on the GTX 960. Power consumption is another clear split: the Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP, while the GTX 960 is rated at 120 W. The suggested PSU is also different, at 550 W and 300 W respectively. The power connectors differ, with the Quadro needing a 6-pin and 8-pin, while the GTX 960 only needs a single 6-pin. The bus interface is also newer on the GTX 960, supporting PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the Quadro. Display outputs are different, with the Quadro featuring 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the GTX 960 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. Finally, the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support.