NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a starkly one-sided picture in raw compute performance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 wins the only directly comparable head-to-head test, dominating the OpenCL workload with a score of 34,676 against the Quadro 6000's 9,846, a 71.6% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap expressed in a single metric.

However, the Quadro 6000 wins in a category that matters more for its intended professional audience: persistence of relevance. The database shows the Quadro 6000 holds a 47th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the GTX 980 sits at the 43rd percentile. That four-point gap in percentile placement, despite the GTX 980's vastly superior raw score, suggests the Quadro's average performance is propped up by a narrower set of workloads where it remains competitive. The GTX 980's average benchmark score of 8,167 across all its recorded tests is dragged down by low DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 passmark results (164, 53, 83, and 46 respectively), while its compute-oriented scores (OpenCL 34,676, Vulkan 22,543, Metal 15,163, and GPU compute 4,753) are where it actually shines.

The GTX 980 also wins on architectural efficiency. It produces 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 compute from a 165 W TDP, while the Quadro 6000 generates 1,027.7 GFLOPS from 204 W. The GTX 980 achieves more than four times the compute throughput while drawing 39 W less. The data implies the GTX 980 is the clear winner for any workload that stresses raw floating-point throughput or modern graphics APIs, while the Quadro 6000's edge lies in its professional positioning and the longer support cycle that its end-of-life status still commands in certain legacy environments.

Architecture Differences

These two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA's design philosophy. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip built on Fermi architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC, but on a 28 nm process. It fits 5,200 million transistors onto a smaller 398 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter, more than double the Quadro's density.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GTX 980 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 4.6 times more shaders, 2.3 times more TMUs, and 1.3 times more ROPs in the GTX 980. The GTX 980 also introduces explicit base and boost clock ratings of 1,127 MHz and 1,216 MHz, while the Quadro 6000 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 980's memory runs at 1,753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), which is substantially faster.

Architectural feature support also differs. The GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the GTX 980 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the available bandwidth between GPU and host. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware units.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980 scores 34,676 against the Quadro 6000's 9,846. The delta percentage is -71.6% from the perspective of the Quadro, meaning the GTX 980 outperforms it by a factor of roughly 3.5. This single result encapsulates the entire architectural gap: newer process node, higher transistor count, more shaders, faster memory, and modern compute scheduling all combine into a massive OpenCL advantage.

The GTX 980's broader benchmark suite reinforces this. Its Vulkan score of 22,543 and Metal score of 15,163 are workloads the Quadro 6000 cannot even attempt, as it has no Vulkan support and Fermi-era hardware was never designed for Apple's Metal API. The GTX 980's Passmark G3D score of 11,095 and GPU compute score of 4,753 demonstrate strength across both rasterization and general-purpose compute. The Quadro 6000 has no corresponding Passmark entries in the database, so its compute capabilities outside OpenCL are not directly measured here.

Contextual rival data further positions the GTX 980's OpenCL result. The GTX 980's nearest rivals by average score include the GTX 950M at 8,135 (0.4% delta), the Radeon R9 M360 at 8,129 (0.5% delta), and the GTX 945M at 8,099 (0.8% delta). These are mobile or entry-level parts, indicating the GTX 980's average score across all tests, not just OpenCL, lands in a modest tier. But its OpenCL score of 34,676 is more than four times its own average, revealing extreme workload specialization. The Quadro 6000's nearest rivals include the Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.1% delta), FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.4% delta), and GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% delta), showing its OpenCL result is tightly clustered with mid-range professional and older enthusiast cards.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro 6000 launches with 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus but delivers 224.4 GB/s, a 56% bandwidth advantage from a narrower bus, achieved through much higher memory clock speeds.

Shading units differ by a factor of 4.6 (448 vs 2,048), TMUs by 2.3 (56 vs 128), and ROPs by 1.3 (48 vs 64). Pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 77.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 980, a 4.8 times difference. Texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 155.6 GTexel/s, a 4.8 times difference. FP32 compute is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 4.981 TFLOPS, a 4.8 times difference. These ratios are consistent, indicating the GTX 980's advantage scales uniformly across all processing stages.

Power and cooling requirements also diverge. The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested power supply, using one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. The GTX 980 has a 165 W TDP, requires a 450 W PSU, and uses two 6-pin connectors. The GTX 980 delivers more performance with less power draw and simpler power delivery requirements.

Physical dimensions differ slightly. The Quadro 6000 measures 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The GTX 980 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) in width. Both are dual-slot cards. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the GTX 980 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. Release dates sit four years apart: the Quadro on December 9, 2010, and the GTX 980 on September 18, 2014.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 71.6% higher than the Quadro 6000's 9,846. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 have any performance advantage over the GTX 980?

A: The Quadro 6000 holds a 47th percentile ranking among all GPUs versus the GTX 980's 43rd percentile. However, this is not a direct performance win; it reflects the Quadro's average score being closer to its peak, while the GTX 980's average is diluted by low DirectX 9 through 12 passmark scores.

Q: Can the Quadro 6000 run Vulkan applications?

A: No. The database lists no Vulkan support for the Quadro 6000. The GTX 980 supports Vulkan 1.4 and scores 22,543 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Quadro 6000 provides 143.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the GTX 980 provides 224.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 980 has 56% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 980 has 2,048 shading units, compared to the Quadro 6000's 448. This is a 4.6 times difference in raw shader count.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP with a 550 W suggested power supply and uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. The GTX 980 has a 165 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU and uses two 6-pin connectors.

The Verdict

The GTX 980 is the superior compute and graphics card by every direct performance metric in the database. Its OpenCL score is 3.5 times higher, its pixel rate is 4.8 times higher, its texture rate is 4.8 times higher, and its FP32 throughput is 4.8 times higher. It also draws less power, supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), and delivers more memory bandwidth. Any user choosing between these two strictly on measured performance should select the GTX 980.

The Quadro 6000's case rests on factors outside raw benchmark scores. Its 6 GB of memory exceeds the GTX 980's 4 GB, which could matter for certain large datasets that fit within VRAM but exceed the GTX 980's capacity. Its higher percentile ranking (47th versus 43rd) suggests more consistent performance across the workloads measured for it. Its S-Video output is a legacy connectivity option the GTX 980 lacks entirely. Its launch MSRP was 4,399 USD, positioning it as a professional tool, while the GTX 980 launched at 549 USD.

The database shows a clear verdict: pick the GTX 980 for any modern workload, compute task, or gaming scenario. Pick the Quadro 6000 only if your application specifically requires 6 GB of VRAM, legacy S-Video output, or a Fermi-era professional certification path, and you are willing to accept less than one-third of the OpenCL performance. The four-year gap between their release dates is not just chronological; it represents a fundamental shift in GPU architecture that the numbers make unambiguous.