NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M represent two distinct generations of professional workstation graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a remarkably close contest in raw compute benchmarks, despite their vastly different designs. The Quadro 6000 is a Fermi-era flagship from 2010, built on a massive 40 nm die, while the M2000M is a Maxwell-era mobile module from 2015, built on a more efficient 28 nm process. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, differing by only 0.1%, which raises immediate questions about what each card prioritizes and how architectural trade-offs translate into real-world performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are striking. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 points. This gives the M2000M a 2.1% victory in this test. The deltaPct value of -2.1% from the Quadro 6000’s perspective confirms this margin. While 2.1% is a narrow lead, it is consistent across the average scores, where the M2000M’s average of 9,832 nearly matches the Quadro 6000’s 9,846. The data indicates the M2000M is marginally ahead in this compute workload, but the difference is within a range that could be considered negligible for many professional tasks.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the M2000M itself at a 0.1% deltaPct. The AMD FirePro W5000 trails by 0.4%, and the GeForce GTX 1070 is 0.7% behind. The Quadro 6000 also outperforms the GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1%. For the M2000M, the same percentile rank of 47 applies, and its nearest rivals include the Quadro 6000 at -0.1% deltaPct, the FirePro W5000 at 0.3%, and the GTX 1070 at 0.5%. The M2000M also leads the Tesla M10 by 1.1%. These numbers suggest that both cards are clustered tightly in the same performance tier, with no clear dominant force among them in this benchmark suite.

The fact that the M2000M wins the only direct benchmark test, yet the average scores are so close, implies that the Quadro 6000’s architectural strengths may shine in other workloads not captured here. The data does not include any other head-to-head tests, so the full picture remains incomplete. What is clear is that in OpenCL compute, the newer M2000M holds a slight edge, likely due to its higher clock speeds and newer instruction set efficiency, despite having fewer memory bandwidth resources.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip, based on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². In contrast, the M2000M uses the GM107 chip, based on Maxwell, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a much smaller 148 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². This means the M2000M is more than twice as dense, reflecting the newer process technology.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The M2000M, despite being a smaller chip, has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This is a fascinating inversion: the M2000M has 43% more shaders but 43% fewer ROPs and 29% fewer TMUs. The pixel rate of the M2000M is 18.19 GPixel/s, slightly higher than the Quadro 6000’s 16.07 GPixel/s, despite the ROP deficit, due to its higher clock speeds. The texture rate tells a different story: the M2000M achieves 45.48 GTexel/s versus the Quadro 6000’s 32.14 GTexel/s, a 41% advantage for the newer card.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The Quadro 6000 has no listed base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 747 MHz, delivering 3 Gbps effective. The M2000M has a base clock of 1098 MHz and a boost clock of 1137 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective. This higher memory clock helps compensate for the M2000M’s narrower 128-bit bus, which provides 80.19 GB/s bandwidth versus the Quadro 6000’s 384-bit bus at 143.4 GB/s. The Quadro 6000 has a clear bandwidth advantage, while the M2000M relies on speed and efficiency.

The FP32 compute performance heavily favors the M2000M: 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, a 42% lead. This is notable because the Quadro 6000’s larger chip and higher power draw do not translate into raw floating-point superiority. The TDP figures reflect this efficiency gap: the Quadro 6000 consumes 204 W with a dual-slot cooler and requires both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, plus a 550 W suggested PSU. The M2000M draws only 55 W, uses an MXM module form factor, has no power connectors, and lists no PSU requirement. This is a fourfold difference in power consumption for a card that is faster in compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9,846, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average of 9,832. The Quadro 6000 leads by 0.1%, which is statistically insignificant.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro 6000 offers 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth via a 384-bit bus, while the M2000M provides 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The Quadro 6000 has a 79% bandwidth advantage.

Q: What is the difference in transistor density?

A: The M2000M has a transistor density of 12.6M per mm², which is more than double the Quadro 6000’s 5.9M per mm². This reflects the newer 28 nm process versus the older 40 nm node.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: The data lists no Vulkan API support for the Quadro 6000, while the M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The M2000M has a pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Quadro 6000’s 16.07 GPixel/s, despite the M2000M having fewer ROPs (16 versus 48).

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The Quadro 6000 was released on December 9, 2010, while the M2000M was released on December 2, 2015. Both are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip on a 40 nm node, while the M2000M uses GM107 on 28 nm. Transistor counts are 3,100 million versus 1,870 million, and die sizes are 529 mm² versus 148 mm². The Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed, while the M2000M runs at 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 6000 versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M2000M.

Memory specifications diverge sharply: the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the M2000M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is 143.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The shading units favor the M2000M at 640 versus 448, but TMUs and ROPs favor the Quadro 6000 at 56 and 48, respectively, versus 40 and 16. Pixel rate is slightly higher on the M2000M (18.19 versus 16.07 GPixel/s), and texture rate is substantially higher (45.48 versus 32.14 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the M2000M versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro 6000.

Power and form factor differences are extreme: the Quadro 6000 draws 204 W with a dual-slot design and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors, while the M2000M draws 55 W as an MXM module with no connectors. The Quadro 6000 lists a 550 W suggested PSU, while the M2000M has none. Bus interfaces are PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 6000 versus MXM-A (3.0) for the M2000M. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the M2000M is dependent on the portable device. The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD; the M2000M has no listed MSRP.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The M2000M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but the Quadro 6000 holds a razor-thin average score advantage. For users prioritizing raw FP32 compute, the M2000M is the clear choice, offering 42% more GFLOPS. For tasks that depend on memory bandwidth, the Quadro 6000’s 143.4 GB/s is nearly double that of the M2000M, making it more suitable for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Quadro 6000 also offers more VRAM at 6 GB versus 4 GB, which could be critical for certain rendering workloads. However, the M2000M’s efficiency is unmatched: 55 W versus 204 W means it can operate in mobile workstations without external power, while the Quadro 6000 requires a substantial PSU and physical space.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. The data does not support a universal winner. The M2000M is newer, faster in compute, and vastly more efficient, but it sacrifices memory capacity and bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 is a legacy desktop behemoth with a wider memory bus and more VRAM, but it lags in shader throughput and consumes nearly four times the power. Both are end-of-life, so availability is a factor, but that is not reflected in the benchmark data. Professionals needing compute density in a portable chassis should lean toward the M2000M, while those with fixed workstations handling memory-heavy workloads may find the Quadro 6000’s bandwidth indispensable.

Where Each One Wins

The M2000M wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 performance of 1,455.4 GFLOPS is decisively higher, and its texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s indicates superior handling of texel-heavy operations. The OpenCL benchmark victory confirms its edge in general-purpose GPU compute. Its higher pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s) also suggests better performance in fill-rate-bound tasks, despite fewer ROPs. For mobile workstations, the 55 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only viable option for battery-powered or compact systems.

The Quadro 6000 wins in memory-bound workloads. Its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth and 384-bit bus provide 79% more bandwidth than the M2000M, which is critical for large frame buffers, high-resolution displays, or multi-sample anti-aliasing. The 6 GB VRAM capacity gives it headroom for larger scenes or data sets than the M2000M’s 4 GB. Its higher ROP count of 48 versus 16 suggests it can sustain certain rasterization operations more consistently, even if the pixel rate is slightly lower. The Quadro 6000 also offers fixed display outputs, which is an advantage for multi-monitor desktop setups, whereas the M2000M relies on the host device for display connectivity.

In summary, the data indicates a split decision. The M2000M is the compute and efficiency champion, while the Quadro 6000 is the bandwidth and capacity leader. Neither card dominates across all metrics, and the 0.1% average score difference underscores that these are closely matched products from different eras.