NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and NVIDIA Quadro K5000 are two professional workstation graphics cards from different architectural generations. The Quadro 6000 is built on the Fermi architecture (GF100 chip), while the K5000 utilizes the newer Kepler architecture (GK104 chip). The benchmark data available for direct comparison is limited to a single OpenCL test, but the specifications and supporting benchmark results from each card’s respective profile provide a clear picture of their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates a clear, though narrow, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 in the only direct head-to-head benchmark available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K5000 scores 11,418, which is 13.8% higher than the Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846. This makes the K5000 the definitive winner in raw compute performance as measured by this specific workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context within each card’s own profile, the K5000’s advantage is consistent. The K5000’s average benchmark score is 9,637, which is actually slightly lower than its OpenCL score, but still competitive with its nearest rivals. It sits within a very tight performance cluster, being just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P4000. This places the K5000 in a performance tier where it can effectively compete with much newer mobile and desktop workstation parts.

The Quadro 6000, on the other hand, has an average benchmark score of 9,846, which is slightly higher than the K5000’s average. This is a key nuance. While the K5000 wins the direct OpenCL test, the Quadro 6000’s overall average is higher because its only recorded benchmark is the OpenCL test at 9,846, whereas the K5000’s average is dragged down by its lower scores in the Metal (6,324) and Vulkan (11,169) tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL test specifically, the K5000 is the clear victor. The Quadro 6000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (0.1% ahead) and the AMD FirePro W5000 (0.4% ahead), showing it is also in a competitive performance bracket, but it trails the K5000 in the compute workload where they intersect.

The K5000 also wins on architectural efficiency. Its 28 nm process node and Kepler design allow it to deliver higher performance with a 122 W TDP, compared to the Quadro 6000’s 204 W TDP. The K5000 also has a significantly higher transistor density at 12.0M / mm² versus the Quadro 6000’s 5.9M / mm². This translates to a much more power-efficient card that requires only a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin power connector, while the Quadro 6000 needs a 550 W PSU and a 6-pin plus 8-pin configuration.

The Verdict

Based on the available data, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the superior card for compute-focused workloads. Its 13.8% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark is a decisive advantage. For any user whose primary task involves OpenCL compute, the K5000 is the clear choice.

However, the verdict is not entirely one-sided. The Quadro 6000 offers a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests (9,846 vs. 9,637). This is primarily due to the K5000’s relatively weak performance in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores only 6,324. This suggests that in specific API environments, particularly Metal, the older Fermi architecture may hold an advantage or the K5000's drivers are not as well optimized. If a user's workflow is heavily reliant on Metal, the Quadro 6000 might be the safer bet despite its lower raw compute score in OpenCL.

For most general-purpose professional use, the K5000 also offers practical benefits. Its lower power draw (122 W vs. 204 W) makes it easier to integrate into existing systems and reduces cooling requirements. The K5000 also has a more modern feature set, including support for Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 6000 has no recorded Vulkan support. The K5000’s higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs. 143.4 GB/s) and texture fill rate (90.37 GTexel/s vs. 32.14 GTexel/s) further cement its position as the more capable card for modern, data-intensive tasks.

The data supports the K5000 as the overall winner for compute performance and efficiency. The Quadro 6000 retains a niche appeal due to its higher average score, but this is a statistical artifact of the limited benchmark set. The Quadro 6000 should only be considered if Metal API performance is a critical, non-negotiable requirement.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison between the two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test. This test measures general-purpose compute performance on the GPU.

• Winner: NVIDIA Quadro K5000
• NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Score: 11,418
• NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Score: 9,846
• Performance Delta: The K5000 is 13.8% faster than the Quadro 6000.

This is a substantial margin in a compute benchmark. To put this in perspective, the K5000’s score of 11,418 places it well ahead of its own average of 9,637, suggesting it is particularly strong in OpenCL workloads. In contrast, the Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846 is exactly its average, indicating consistent performance but at a lower level.

Examining the rival data for each card reinforces this gap. The Quadro 6000’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, scores 9,832, which is a negligible 0.1% difference. The K5000, however, is surrounded by competitors like the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), all of which it is within 0.3% of. While the K5000’s direct score is higher, its position among rivals shows it is part of a more modern, faster performance tier than the Quadro 6000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is faster, scoring 11,418 compared to the Quadro 6000’s 9,846, a 13.8% advantage.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9,846. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9,637.

Q: How much more power-efficient is the Quadro K5000?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W, which is significantly lower than the Quadro 6000’s 204 W TDP. It also requires a 300 W suggested PSU compared to the Quadro 6000’s 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a higher bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s.

Q: Does the Quadro K5000 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the K5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0), along with OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 6000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no recorded Vulkan support.

Q: Which card has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a significantly higher texture fill rate of 90.37 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro 6000’s 32.14 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent a significant generational leap in GPU architecture.

• Architecture and Process Node: The Quadro 6000 is based on the Fermi architecture (GF100 chip) and is manufactured on a 40 nm process node. The Quadro K5000 uses the Kepler architecture (GK104 chip) on a more advanced 28 nm process node.

• Transistors and Die Size: Despite being on a smaller process, the K5000 packs more transistors. It has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9M / mm². This shows Kepler was a far more efficient design.

• Core Configuration: The K5000 has a massively higher core count with 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), compared to the Quadro 6000’s 448 shading units and 56 TMUs. The Quadro 6000 does have more ROPs (48 vs. 32), but the K5000’s sheer number of shaders and TMUs gives it a massive compute and texturing advantage.

• Memory Subsystem: The Quadro 6000 offers more memory capacity at 6 GB with a wider 384-bit bus. However, the K5000’s 4 GB on a 256-bit bus runs at a higher effective speed, resulting in greater memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s vs. 143.4 GB/s). The K5000’s memory clock is 5.4 Gbps effective, while the Quadro 6000’s is 3 Gbps effective.

• Power and Cooling: The K5000 is drastically more power-efficient, with a 122 W TDP versus the Quadro 6000’s 204 W. This leads to different power connector requirements: the K5000 needs a single 6-pin connector, while the Quadro 6000 requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The K5000 also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 300 W compared to 550 W.

• APIs: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K5000 adds Vulkan 1.2.175 support, a feature absent from the Quadro 6000’s specifications.

• Physical Dimensions: The Quadro 6000 is shorter at 248 mm (9.8 inches) in length, while the K5000 is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches). Both are dual-slot cards with the same height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).