NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison recorded in the database for these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 10,602 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points. The GRID K2 wins this head-to-head with a delta of 7.1% over the Quadro 6000. This is a notable margin for a single compute benchmark, though both cards are clearly in the same performance tier for OpenCL workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro 6000's average benchmark score of 9,846 places it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Quadro M2000M (9,832, just 0.1% behind), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% behind), and the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% behind). The only card ahead of it in its immediate peer group is the GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959, which leads the Quadro 6000 by 1.1%. This suggests the Quadro 6000 is a well-established mid-tier performer in the database's rankings.

The GRID K2, by contrast, has an average score of 8,080 across all recorded benchmarks, which places it in the 42nd percentile. Notably, its average is dragged down by a much lower Geekbench Metal score of 5,557, while its OpenCL score of 10,602 is actually higher than the Quadro 6000's OpenCL result. Its nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067, 0.2% behind), the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053, 0.3% behind), and the GeForce 945M (8,099, 0.2% ahead). The GRID K2's average score is essentially level with these consumer cards, showing that its compute strength in OpenCL is not matched by its performance in other API paths.

What stands out here is the inconsistency in the GRID K2's scores. A card that beats the Quadro 6000 by 7.1% in OpenCL yet scores 5,557 in Metal suggests that its architecture is highly workload dependent. The Quadro 6000, with only OpenCL results recorded, is more consistent in that single metric. For a builder focused purely on OpenCL compute, the GRID K2 is the clear winner. For those who need predictable performance across varied rendering tasks, the Quadro 6000's narrower but steadier profile might be preferable.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 wins with a score of 10,602, beating the Quadro 6000's 9,846 by 7.1%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has an average score of 9,846, while the GRID K2 averages 8,080 across all recorded tests.

Q: How do these cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro 6000 sits in the 47th percentile, while the GRID K2 is in the 42nd percentile.

Q: Does the GRID K2 outperform the Quadro 6000 in every recorded test?

A: No. The GRID K2 wins the OpenCL test, but it also has a recorded Metal score of 5,557, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL result, suggesting it falls behind in other workloads.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The GRID K2 offers 160.0 GB/s, which is higher than the Quadro 6000's 143.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in their launch prices?

A: The Quadro 6000 had a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD, while the GRID K2 launched at 5,199 USD.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. If the primary workload is OpenCL compute, the GRID K2 is the superior choice. Its 10,602 OpenCL score is 7.1% above the Quadro 6000's best result, and its raw specifications, such as 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 143.4 GB/s, support that advantage. The GRID K2 also has nearly 3.5 times the shading units (1,536 vs 448) and more than double the texture fill rate (95.36 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s), which helps in parallel workloads.

However, the Quadro 6000 is the safer pick for general professional use. Its average benchmark score is significantly higher than the GRID K2's (9,846 vs 8,080), and it ranks better overall in the database percentile rankings (47th vs 42nd). The GRID K2's low Metal score of 5,557 indicates that its performance is not consistent across all APIs, while the Quadro 6000's single recorded score is more reliable. The Quadro 6000 also has a lower launch MSRP (4,399 USD vs 5,199 USD), which is a relevant consideration for procurement.

If you need a card to handle compute-heavy tasks and can tolerate its weaker general API performance, the GRID K2 is the data-backed pick. If you need a dependable, all-around professional accelerator, the Quadro 6000's higher average score and better percentile rank make it the more sensible choice. The GRID K2 does not have display outputs, so it is only viable in a server or compute environment, while the Quadro 6000 includes DVI, DisplayPort, and S-Video outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The Quadro 6000 uses 40 nm process node with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the GRID K2 uses a 28 nm node with 3,540 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die. The GRID K2 has a higher transistor density of 12.0M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro 6000.

Memory configuration differs substantially: the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus (143.4 GB/s), while the GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (160.0 GB/s). The GRID K2 has more shading units (1,536 vs 448), more texture mapping units (128 vs 56), but fewer ROPs (32 vs 48). Pixel rate favors the GRID K2 at 23.84 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 95.36 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

The GRID K2 has a higher TDP at 225 W, matching power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) and suggested PSU (550 W). Both are dual-slot cards. The bus interface differs: the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GRID K2 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro 6000 has display outputs (DVI, DisplayPort, S-Video), while the GRID K2 has no display outputs. The GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 6000 does not list Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The most significant architectural difference is the chip design. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip based on the Fermi architecture, while the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but Fermi is built on a 40 nm process, while Kepler is on a 28 nm process.

Kepler's transistor count (3,540 million) is higher than Fermi's (3,100 million), but its die size is much smaller (294 mm² vs 529 mm²), which means Kepler packs more transistors per square millimeter. This architectural shift also explains the difference in shading units: the GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, more than triple the 448 of the Quadro 6000. The Kepler design also doubles the texture units (128 vs 56) and reduces the ROP count (32 vs 48) compared to Fermi.

The GRID K2's memory clock is also higher, at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 6000. This higher clock speed contributes to its bandwidth advantage even with a narrower 256-bit bus. The GRID K2 also supports the newer Vulkan API, which the Fermi-based Quadro 6000 cannot match. The Quadro 6000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler, indicating it is an older generation. The GRID K2 has no listed predecessor or successor, but its Kepler architecture places it in the same generation as later Quadro cards.

Where Each One Wins

The GRID K2 wins in raw compute density. Its 2.289 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than double the 1,027.7 GFLOPS of the Quadro 6000. It also wins in memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 143.4 GB/s), texture fill rate (95.36 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s), and pixel fill rate (23.84 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s). For workloads that saturate these resources, such as rendering, physics simulation, or high-throughput data processing, the GRID K2 is the superior choice.

The Quadro 6000 wins in overall average performance, because its single benchmark score is more consistent. It also wins on memory capacity, with 6 GB versus 4 GB, which is an advantage for large datasets that exceed the GRID K2's 4 GB frame buffer. The Quadro 6000 also has the edge in portability, as it has display outputs for workstation use, while the GRID K2 is only for server installations.

The GRID K2's lower average score (8,080) stems from its Metal result of 5,557, which pulls its average down. If a workload only uses OpenCL, the GRID K2 is the winner, but for any task that relies on other APIs, the Quadro 6000 is more consistent. The Quadro 6000 also has a lower TDP (204 W vs 225 W), which may reduce cooling requirements in a dense system.

In summary, the GRID K2's strong compute architecture makes it the choice for raw performance in compatible workloads, while the Quadro 6000's higher average score and display support make it the better all-rounder for a desktop professional workstation.