NVIDIA GeForce MX350 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a clear verdict: the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 outperforms the GeForce MX350 by 11.8%. The Quadro 6000 scores 9846 against the MX350’s 8689, a margin that places the older professional card firmly ahead in raw compute throughput. This is not a marginal gap; an 11.8% deficit means the MX350 trails by a substantial margin in OpenCL workloads, which often scale with memory bandwidth and raw shader throughput.

However, the MX350 has its own competitive standing when placed against its nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score of 10883 places it just 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10804) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761). It trails the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER by 1.5% (11047) and the AMD Radeon RX 550 by 1.7% (11075). The Quadro 6000’s average score of 9846, by contrast, sits within 0.1% of the Quadro M2000M (9832) and 0.4% of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803), while leading the GeForce GTX 1070 by 0.7% (9780) and trailing the GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1% (9959).

The deltaPct values reveal that the MX350’s advantage over its peers is thin, never exceeding 1.1%, while its deficits are similarly narrow, never exceeding 1.7%. The Quadro 6000’s rivalries are even tighter, with deltas all within 1.1%. This suggests both cards sit in dense performance clusters where small architectural differences translate into minor percentage swings. The head-to-head OpenCL result, however, breaks that pattern: the 11.8% gap is not a rounding error but a real generational and design divide.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two NVIDIA parts is vast, reflecting a decade of process and design evolution. The GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip built on Samsung’s 14 nm process, packing 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip on TSMC’s 40 nm process, with 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story: the MX350 achieves 25.0M transistors per mm², while the Quadro 6000 manages only 5.9M per mm². The newer process allows the MX350 to pack similar transistor counts into a quarter of the silicon area.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The MX350 fields 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 6000 counters with 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite fewer shaders, the Quadro 6000’s higher TMU and ROP counts suggest a design optimized for fill-rate-heavy professional workloads. Pixel rate favors the MX350 at 23.49 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors the Quadro 6000 at 32.14 GTexel/s versus 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350 — wait, the data shows the MX350 leads texture rate at 46.98 GTexel/s against the Quadro 6000’s 32.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute tells a similar split: the MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS, nearly double the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS (approximately 1.03 TFLOPS). The MX350 also lists FP16 at 29.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the Quadro 6000 has no FP16 specification.

Memory architecture is where the Quadro 6000 dominates. It carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has just 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, producing 56.06 GB/s. That 2.6x bandwidth advantage is decisive for data-intensive workloads. Clock speeds also differ: the MX350 runs at 1354 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost, while the Quadro 6000 has no listed base or boost clocks; its memory runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) versus the MX350’s 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Power envelopes are starkly different: the MX350 is a 20 W part with no power connectors, while the Quadro 6000 draws 204 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The Quadro 6000 is dual-slot, 248 mm long, while the MX350’s length is unlisted and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The MX350 wins decisively in compute-per-watt and raw shader throughput. Its FP32 output of 1.879 TFLOPS is roughly 83% higher than the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Pixel fill rate also favors the MX350 (23.49 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s), as does texture fill rate (46.98 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). For workloads that are shader-bound or fill-rate-bound — typical of modern gaming effects, lightweight rendering, or compute kernels that fit in memory — the MX350 is the faster chip. Its 14 nm process and 20 W TDP make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, with no external power connectors required.

The Quadro 6000 wins where memory capacity and bandwidth matter. Its 6 GB frame buffer is triple the MX350’s 2 GB, and its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the MX350’s 56.06 GB/s. The 384-bit bus is a legacy of a workstation-class design, and that bandwidth advantage likely explains its 11.8% OpenCL lead despite lower shader counts and clock speeds. The Quadro 6000 also has more TMUs (56 versus 32) and ROPs (48 versus 16), which can benefit specific rasterization-heavy professional applications. Its dual-slot form factor, multiple display outputs, and 204 W TDP mark it as a stationary workstation component, not a mobile part. The Quadro 6000’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler, indicating a clear professional lineage.

The benchmark data reinforces this split. The Quadro 6000 wins the only direct comparison (Geekbench OpenCL) by 11.8%, but the MX350’s average benchmark score of 10883 is 10.5% higher than the Quadro 6000’s 9846. That apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the MX350’s average includes a second benchmark (Geekbench Vulkan, score 13077) which the Quadro 6000 lacks. The OpenCL result specifically favors the Quadro 6000, suggesting that OpenCL’s memory-access patterns reward the Quadro 6000’s bandwidth advantage. The Vulkan score, meanwhile, likely reflects the MX350’s superior shader throughput and modern API support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The GeForce MX350 delivers 1.879 TFLOPS, which is substantially higher than the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support the same modern APIs as the MX350?

A: No. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Quadro 6000 provides 143.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5. The MX350 provides 56.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The MX350 has a 20 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors.

Q: In the head-to-head OpenCL test, who wins and by how much?

A: The Quadro 6000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 9846 against the MX350’s 8689, a delta of -11.8% for the MX350.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The MX350’s GP107S achieves 25.0M transistors per mm² on 14 nm, while the Quadro 6000’s GF100 achieves 5.9M transistors per mm² on 40 nm.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, taking Geekbench OpenCL by 11.8% (9846 versus 8689). That result is consistent with its massive memory bandwidth advantage: 143.4 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s, and triple the frame buffer (6 GB versus 2 GB). For workloads that are memory-bound — large data sets, high-resolution textures, multi-display professional environments — the Quadro 6000 is the better choice, despite being over nine years older (release date December 2010 versus February 2020).

The GeForce MX350, however, is the superior compute engine in raw terms. It delivers 1.879 TFLOPS FP32, more than double the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS, and leads in both pixel rate (23.49 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (46.98 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). Its average benchmark score of 10883 also exceeds the Quadro 6000’s 9846, powered by a strong Vulkan result (13077) that the Quadro 6000 cannot even attempt. The MX350’s 14 nm process and 20 W TDP make it a mobile-friendly part, while the Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot workstation card requiring a 550 W PSU.

Who should pick which? Users running OpenCL-based professional compute that benefits from high memory bandwidth and capacity should gravitate to the Quadro 6000. Its 6 GB buffer and 384-bit bus are irreplaceable assets for large datasets. Users prioritizing shader throughput, modern API support (Vulkan 1.4, DirectX 12_1), and power efficiency should choose the MX350. The MX350 also has the advantage of being a newer design with a higher percentile rank (49 versus 47) and a higher average score. The Quadro 6000’s launch MSRP was 4,399 USD, reflecting its professional positioning, but the MX350’s performance in synthetic benchmarks suggests it is no slouch in compute tasks that fit within its 2 GB memory limit. In short: the Quadro 6000 wins the memory war, but the MX350 wins the compute and efficiency war. The direct OpenCL test favors the Quadro 6000, but the broader benchmark picture favors the MX350.