NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these two NVIDIA cards cleanly by era and workload. The Quadro K6000, a Kepler-generation workstation card from 2013, still holds a narrow win in Vulkan compute, beating the RTX 3070 by 20.9% in that single test. The GeForce RTX 3070, an Ampere consumer card from 2020, utterly dominates in OpenCL, scoring 112,821 versus 23,749, a 78.9% advantage. If your software path relies on Vulkan compute, the older Quadro is not obsolete. For nearly any modern GPU compute task, especially OpenCL, the RTX 3070 is the clear choice. The RTX 3070 also brings dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, features absent from the Quadro, making it the future-proof option. The Quadro K6000 remains relevant only for legacy workstation environments or specific Vulkan workloads. The RTX 3070 is the superior all-around performer, with the Quadro K6000 serving as a niche specialist.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by two full GPU generations. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3070 uses the GA104 chip on Ampere, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm node. It contains 17,400 million transistors on a smaller 392 mm² die, reaching a far higher density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3070 crams 2.5 times more transistors into roughly two-thirds the silicon area.

Core configurations differ sharply. The Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. Its base clock is 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz. The RTX 3070 nearly doubles the shading units to 5,888, uses 184 TMUs and 96 ROPs, and runs much faster at 1,500 MHz base and 1,725 MHz boost. The RTX 3070 also adds 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, hardware that the Quadro completely lacks. This architectural gap explains the massive compute delta: the RTX 3070 delivers 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 5.196 TFLOPS for the Quadro.

Memory systems also diverge. The Quadro K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, producing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3070 uses 8 GB of faster GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 3070 has 55% more memory bandwidth despite a smaller capacity and narrower bus. The Quadro carries a larger frame buffer for holding big datasets, while the RTX 3070 wins on raw throughput.

Connectivity and outputs differ as well. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX 3070 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RTX 3070 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support favors the RTX 3070, which lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Power draw is close, 225 W for the Quadro and 220 W for the RTX 3070, with the same 550 W suggested PSU. The Quadro is physically longer at 267 mm versus 242 mm, and its launch MSRP was 5,265 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3070 wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its score of 112,821 dwarfs the Quadro K6000's 23,749, a 78.9% gap. This makes the RTX 3070 the obvious pick for OpenCL-accelerated tasks like physics simulation, video encoding, or data processing. The FP32 throughput of 20.31 TFLOPS, nearly four times the Quadro's 5.196 TFLOPS, confirms this edge. The RTX 3070 also has 96 ROPs versus 48, doubling pixel throughput to 165.6 GPixel/s, which matters for rasterization-heavy workloads.

The Quadro K6000 wins the single Vulkan benchmark in the head-to-head set, scoring 25,409 versus 21,022 for the RTX 3070, a 20.9% margin. This suggests the Kepler architecture retains strength in certain Vulkan compute paths. The Quadro's larger 12 GB frame buffer also gives it an edge for data-heavy tasks that exceed 8 GB, despite lower bandwidth. The 384-bit bus and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth can still feed large textures or datasets.

For gaming and consumer workloads, the RTX 3070's features are decisive: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The Quadro K6000 has no ray tracing or tensor hardware and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). The RTX 3070 also runs at much higher clocks, 1,725 MHz boost versus 902 MHz, which benefits all latency-sensitive tasks.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Quadro K6000 at 19,030, slightly ahead of the RTX 3070's 17,208. However, this average is skewed by the RTX 3070's inclusion of older DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 scores (247 and 150, respectively), which drag down its mean. The RTX 3070's PassMark G3D score is 22,214, and its PassMark GPU compute score is 11,195, both respectable. The Quadro K6000's percentile ranking is 63, versus 61 for the RTX 3070, meaning the Quadro sits slightly higher relative to all GPUs in the database.

FAQ

Q: Is the Quadro K6000 faster than the RTX 3070 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Quadro K6000 scores 25,409 versus 21,022 for the RTX 3070, a 20.9% advantage.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between these two cards?

A: The RTX 3070 scores 112,821 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749. The RTX 3070 leads by 78.9%.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the RTX 3070 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The RTX 3070 has higher bandwidth at 448.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s.

Q: Does the RTX 3070 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX 3070 includes 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The Quadro K6000 has no ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 across all recorded benchmarks, while the RTX 3070 averages 17,208. The Quadro sits at the 63rd percentile versus 61st for the RTX 3070.

Q: Are there API differences that matter?

A: The RTX 3070 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between the Quadro K6000 and the RTX 3070. The results are starkly split.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3070 posts 112,821 points. The Quadro K6000 manages only 23,749 points. That is a 78.9% deficit for the older card. The delta is enormous and reflects the architectural leap from Kepler to Ampere. The RTX 3070's 5,888 shading units at 1,725 MHz boost, combined with 20.31 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, simply overwhelms the Quadro's 2,880 units at 902 MHz and 5.196 TFLOPS. The RTX 3070 also benefits from faster GDDR6 memory with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 288.4 GB/s, reducing memory bottlenecks in compute-heavy kernels. Any OpenCL workload, whether it is image processing, physics, or machine learning inference, will run dramatically faster on the RTX 3070.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The Quadro K6000 scores 25,409, while the RTX 3070 scores 21,022. The Quadro leads by 20.9%. This is a surprising result given the RTX 3070's newer architecture and higher specifications. The Vulkan test may favor the Quadro's driver optimization or its larger 12 GB frame buffer, which allows bigger working sets without spilling to system memory. The Quadro's 384-bit memory bus also provides 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is still substantial. The RTX 3070's 8 GB capacity might limit Vulkan workloads that allocate large buffers. Whatever the cause, the data shows the Quadro K6000 remains competitive in Vulkan compute, a niche worth noting for legacy software stacks.

Outside the direct head-to-head, the RTX 3070's broader benchmark suite reveals its strengths. Its PassMark G3D score is 22,214, and its PassMark GPU compute score is 11,195. DirectX 12 performance in PassMark is 85, DirectX 11 is 182, and DirectX 9 is 247. These numbers show a card optimized for modern APIs. The Quadro K6000 has no recorded DirectX or PassMark scores in the database, so no comparison is possible there.

The RTX 3070's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,162 further demonstrates its modern rendering capability. The Quadro K6000 has no equivalent score. The RTX 3070's Geekbench Vulkan score of 21,022 is lower than its OpenCL score, which is common for consumer drivers, but still respectable. The Quadro's Vulkan score of 25,409 is its best recorded result, indicating that its Kepler architecture and workstation drivers handle Vulkan compute particularly well.

The database's nearest rivals for each card put these results in context. The Quadro K6000's average score of 19,030 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (0.1% behind). It edges the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954 by 0.4%. The RTX 3070's average of 17,208 sits 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT at 17,083, and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 at 17,037. The NVIDIA Tesla K40c at 17,468 is 1.5% ahead of the RTX 3070. These comparisons show both cards perform near the middle of their respective GPU cohorts, with the Quadro slightly higher on average.

The wins are split one apiece in the head-to-head set, but the magnitude of the RTX 3070's OpenCL victory dwarfs the Quadro's Vulkan win. A 78.9% gain in one test versus a 20.9% gain in another means the RTX 3070 is the stronger card overall. The Quadro K6000's Vulkan advantage is real but narrow, and it comes in a single test. For anyone choosing between these two today, the RTX 3070 is the default recommendation. The Quadro K6000 is only worth considering for Vulkan-specific workstation tasks or if 12 GB of memory is a hard requirement.