NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK are two very different cards from two very different eras of NVIDIA's lineup. The Quadro 6000 is a workstation professional from the Fermi generation, while the TITAN BLACK is a consumer flagship from the Kepler generation. While both ship with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 384-bit bus, the benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the choice between them depends heavily on whether you need raw compute power or specific professional software certifications. The data shows the TITAN BLACK is the far superior performer in raw compute, but the Quadro 6000 holds its own in the professional ecosystem due to its architecture and driver support.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK is the better GPU for anyone prioritizing raw performance. In the only shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN BLACK scores 27,218, which is a massive 63.8% higher than the Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846. This is a dominant victory that aligns with the TITAN BLACK’s much newer architecture and higher specifications. The TITAN BLACK also boasts a much broader benchmark suite, including scores for Vulkan and Metal, which the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely. If you are building a system for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning, the TITAN BLACK is the obvious choice from a pure performance standpoint.

However, the Quadro 6000 is not without merit. While its OpenCL score is far lower, it is a professional workstation card designed for stability and certified performance in specific applications. The Quadro 6000’s nearest rivals in the data include the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the AMD FirePro W5000, with average scores of 9,832 and 9,803, respectively. The Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846 places it 0.1% ahead of the M2000M and 0.4% ahead of the FirePro W5000. This suggests it is still competitive within its own professional class, even if it is far behind a consumer flagship like the TITAN BLACK. The launch MSRP for the Quadro 6000 was 4,399 USD, while the TITAN BLACK launched at 999 USD, which further highlights the different market positioning.

The verdict is simple: if you need maximum compute performance and are not tied to professional software certifications, the TITAN BLACK is the only rational choice. If you are working in a legacy professional environment that requires the Quadro’s certified driver stack and are upgrading from an older Quadro, the data shows it remains a capable option, but you will be sacrificing a huge amount of raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,846, compared to the GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK’s average of 9,474. This is despite the TITAN BLACK winning the head-to-head OpenCL test by a wide margin.

Q: Does the TITAN BLACK support more modern APIs?

A: Yes. The TITAN BLACK supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 6000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The TITAN BLACK has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s, while the Quadro 6000 has 143.4 GB/s. Both use 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The TITAN BLACK has 7,080 million transistors on its GK110B chip, while the Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million transistors on its GF100 chip. The TITAN BLACK also uses a smaller 28 nm process node compared to the Quadro 6000’s 40 nm node.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The TITAN BLACK has a pixel rate of 58.80 GPixel/s, which is far higher than the Quadro 6000’s 16.07 GPixel/s. This gives the TITAN BLACK a major advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the Quadro 6000 and the TITAN BLACK are marked as end-of-life in the data. The Quadro 6000 was released in December 2010, while the TITAN BLACK came later in February 2014.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip based on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the TITAN BLACK uses the GK110B chip based on the Kepler architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a much smaller 28 nm process. This process shrink allows the TITAN BLACK to pack 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, while the Quadro 6000 fits 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the TITAN BLACK has 12.6M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 6000 has only 5.9M per mm².

The core configurations are vastly different. The TITAN BLACK has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 6000 has only 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. While the ROP count is identical, the TITAN BLACK has more than six times the shading units and more than four times the TMUs. This translates into a massive difference in compute throughput. The TITAN BLACK’s FP32 performance is 5.645 TFLOPS, while the Quadro 6000 is rated at 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). This is a fundamental architectural leap, not just a clock speed bump.

Another key architectural difference is the memory clock. The Quadro 6000 runs its memory at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the TITAN BLACK runs at 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Combined with the same 384-bit bus, this leads to the TITAN BLACK’s 336.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the Quadro 6000’s 143.4 GB/s. The TITAN BLACK also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 6000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. Finally, the TITAN BLACK supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and has a DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level, whereas the Quadro 6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan entirely.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight the generational gap. The TITAN BLACK has a base clock of 889 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed in the data. The memory clocks differ significantly: 1,750 MHz for the TITAN BLACK versus 747 MHz for the Quadro 6000. Both have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 384-bit bus, and 48 ROPs, but the TITAN BLACK’s bandwidth is more than double.

The TITAN BLACK has 2,880 shading units and 240 TMUs, while the Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units and 56 TMUs. The pixel rate is 58.80 GPixel/s for the TITAN BLACK versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the Quadro 6000. The texture rate is 235.2 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s. The TITAN BLACK also has a higher TDP of 250 W, compared to the Quadro 6000’s 204 W, and requires a 600 W suggested PSU versus 550 W. Both are dual-slot cards with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors.

The bus interface differs: the TITAN BLACK uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ; the TITAN BLACK has 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The TITAN BLACK is also longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus the Quadro 6000’s 248 mm (9.8 inches), but both are 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The TITAN BLACK has a width of 38 mm (1.5 inches), while the Quadro 6000’s width is not specified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a blowout. The TITAN BLACK scores 27,218, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. The delta is -63.8%, meaning the Quadro 6000 is nearly two-thirds slower than the TITAN BLACK in this compute test. This is a decisive win for the TITAN BLACK, and it aligns perfectly with the architectural differences. The TITAN BLACK has more shading units, higher clocks, and much higher memory bandwidth, all of which contribute to OpenCL compute performance.

The TITAN BLACK also has a broader set of benchmark results. It scores 24,172 in Geekbench Metal, 29,561 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 9,184 in Passmark G3D. It also has scores for Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, with values of 133, 47, 73, and 34, respectively. The Quadro 6000 has no such results in the data, making the TITAN BLACK the clear winner in terms of raw compute and API coverage.

Based on these results, the TITAN BLACK wins the head-to-head with 1 win and 0 losses. The Quadro 6000’s only benchmark score is the OpenCL result, which is far lower. This is not a close contest. The TITAN BLACK’s nearest rivals in the data include the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and the GeForce GTX 960M, with average scores of 9,637 and 9,645, respectively. The TITAN BLACK’s average score of 9,474 is 1.7% lower than the K5000 and 1.8% lower than the GTX 960M. This shows that while the TITAN BLACK wins the head-to-head against the Quadro 6000, its overall average is pulled down by the diverse set of tests it runs, including low DirectX scores.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN BLACK wins in every measurable performance category in the head-to-head data. It wins the OpenCL compute test by a huge margin, and it has a full suite of additional benchmark results that the Quadro 6000 simply does not have. If your workload is compute-heavy and benefits from high FP32 throughput, the TITAN BLACK is the clear winner. Its 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 336.0 GB/s bandwidth make it ideal for tasks like GPU rendering, scientific simulation, and machine learning inference. The Vulkan and Metal support also make it more future-proof for modern applications.

The Quadro 6000’s wins are more nuanced. It does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has a higher average benchmark score of 9,846 compared to the TITAN BLACK’s 9,474. This is because the TITAN BLACK’s average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which are very low. The Quadro 6000’s single OpenCL score is more consistent. In the professional workstation market, the Quadro 6000’s nearest rivals are other Quadro and FirePro cards, and it beats the Quadro M2000M by 0.1% and the FirePro W5000 by 0.4%. This suggests it is still a viable option for legacy professional applications that require certified drivers and specific software optimizations.

The TITAN BLACK also benefits from a lower TDP-to-performance ratio in absolute terms, but it does have a higher TDP of 250 W versus 204 W. However, the performance gain is so large that the efficiency is still better. The Quadro 6000’s advantage lies in its professional pedigree and its launch MSRP of 4,399 USD, which was typical for a workstation card. The TITAN BLACK launched at 999 USD. In terms of raw use cases, the TITAN BLACK wins for any compute or gaming workload. The Quadro 6000 only makes sense if you are locked into a professional ecosystem that requires Quadro-specific features, but the data shows you will be sacrificing a massive amount of performance.