NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single benchmark comparison between these two cards, the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points. That gives the GTX 960A a 21.9% lead in this workload, a decisive margin that points to a clear performance gap.

The GTX 960A’s score places it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1080 at 11,960 (0.3% behind), the Radeon RX 6500 XT at 11,842 (1.3% behind), the GeForce GTX 1660 at 11,680 (2.7% behind), and the Radeon RX 7800 XT at 11,627 (3.2% behind). The GTX 960A essentially trades blows with these much newer and larger cards, which is remarkable given its MXM form factor and modest specifications. Being within 3.2% of the RX 7800 XT in this synthetic OpenCL test is not something the hardware specifications alone would suggest.

The Quadro 6000, by contrast, sits at the 47th percentile. Its nearest rivals are all within a 1.1% window. The Quadro M2000M scores 9,832 (0.1% behind), the FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 (0.4% behind), and the GeForce GTX 1070 scores 9,780 (0.7% behind). The only card that beats it in that group is the GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959, which is 1.1% faster. The Quadro 6000 is therefore not an outlier in either direction; it is squarely in the middle of a cluster of mid-range professional and consumer GPUs. The GTX 960A, however, punches far above what its core counts would suggest.

The delta between the two cards is substantial. A 21.9% advantage in OpenCL compute is not a minor difference; it is a full tier of performance. In practical terms, the GTX 960A completes compute workloads measurably faster, and this advantage is consistent with its newer architecture and higher clock speeds.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The architecture is Maxwell, part of the GeForce 900A generation. This is a small, efficient chip designed for mobile and compact systems. It has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The base clock is 1,097 MHz with a boost clock of 1,176 MHz. Memory runs at 5 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The card has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Pixel fill rate is 18.82 GPixel/s, texture rate is 47.04 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 1.505 TFLOPS.

The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip built on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It contains 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, which gives a transistor density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is a Fermi architecture part, from the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. The die is more than three and a half times larger than the GTX 960A’s, but the density is far lower due to the older process. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. Its memory clock is 3 Gbps effective on a 384-bit bus, which produces 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The card has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory. Pixel fill rate is 16.07 GPixel/s, texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

The architectural gap is stark. The GTX 960A achieves higher FP32 throughput (1.505 TFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) despite having fewer shading units and a narrower memory bus. The Maxwell architecture is far more efficient per transistor and per clock. The Quadro 6000’s advantages are in memory capacity (6 GB vs 2 GB) and memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), but raw compute throughput is not one of them. The GTX 960A also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The process node difference is a major factor. The GTX 960A’s 28 nm process is a generation newer than the Quadro 6000’s 40 nm process. That explains the massive density advantage: 12.6M transistors per mm² versus 5.9M. The Quadro 6000 compensates with a huge die and more memory, but it cannot overcome the efficiency deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960A wins in compute performance, as measured by the OpenCL benchmark. It is 21.9% faster than the Quadro 6000 in that direct comparison. Its percentile ranking (51st) is also higher than the Quadro 6000’s (47th). For anyone running OpenCL-based workloads, such as rendering, physics simulation, or general GPU compute tasks, the GTX 960A is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Quadro 6000 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. It has 6 GB of memory versus 2 GB, and 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound, where large datasets need to reside in VRAM, the Quadro 6000 has a structural advantage. A 6 GB frame buffer can hold textures, models, or buffers that would not fit in 2 GB. The 384-bit bus also feeds data faster, which can help in scenarios where the GPU is waiting on memory rather than computing.

The Quadro 6000 also has a higher ROP count (48 vs 16), which could help with fill-rate-bound tasks, though its pixel rate is actually lower (16.07 GPixel/s vs 18.82 GPixel/s) because of its lower clocks. The texture rate is also lower (32.14 vs 47.04 GTexel/s). So even in traditional rasterization metrics, the GTX 960A is ahead despite fewer ROPs.

Power consumption is another split. The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W. The GTX 960A is an MXM module with no power connectors, drawing all power from the slot. This makes it suitable for compact or mobile systems, whereas the Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card that needs a full desktop power supply. The Quadro 6000 also has a physical length of 248 mm and height of 111 mm, while the GTX 960A’s dimensions are listed as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on compute performance: the GTX 960A is the faster card. A 21.9% lead in the only benchmark recorded, combined with a higher percentile ranking, means that for any OpenCL compute workload, the GTX 960A should be preferred. It is also far more power-efficient, with a 75 W TDP versus 204 W, and does not require external power connectors.

The Quadro 6000 is only the better choice if memory capacity is the limiting factor. Its 6 GB frame buffer and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth are the only metrics where it leads. For workloads that require large datasets in VRAM, such as certain rendering or simulation tasks, the Quadro 6000’s larger memory pool could matter more than raw compute speed. However, those tasks would also need to be compatible with its lower compute throughput.

The GTX 960A also supports Vulkan 1.4, which the Quadro 6000 does not. That is a practical advantage for modern applications that use Vulkan for cross-platform compute or graphics. The GTX 960A’s Maxwell architecture is also newer, with a higher transistor density and better per-clock efficiency.

Who should pick which? If you are running OpenCL compute and can fit your data in 2 GB, the GTX 960A is the obvious pick. It is faster, cooler, and more efficient. If you need 6 GB of VRAM and have the power budget for a 204 W card, the Quadro 6000 is the only option here, but you will accept a significant compute penalty. The launch MSRP of the Quadro 6000 was 4,399 USD, which reflects its professional positioning, but on measured performance the GTX 960A is the stronger part.

FAQ

Q: Which card scores higher in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 points, which is 21.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 have any performance advantage over the GTX 960A?

A: Yes, in memory specifications. The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the GTX 960A’s 2 GB on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node difference between these two cards?

A: The GTX 960A is built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, while the Quadro 6000 is built on TSMC’s 40 nm process. The GTX 960A has a transistor density of 12.6M per mm², versus 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro 6000.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W and uses no power connectors. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 550 W.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 6000 does not list Vulkan support. The GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How does the GTX 960A compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 960A is within 3.2% of the Radeon RX 7800 XT (which scores 11,627), and 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 1080 (which scores 11,960). The Quadro 6000 is within 1.1% of the GeForce GTX 870M, which scores 9,959.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |

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

| Chip | GM107 | GF100 |

| 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 |

| Base Clock | 1097 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1176 MHz | Not listed |

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

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 448 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.82 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 47.04 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.505 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 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 | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 248 mm length, 111 mm height |

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

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 4,399 USD |