NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 represent two distinct eras of professional workstation graphics, separated by over six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational shift, with the Quadro P4000 delivering a decisive victory in the only shared benchmark, yet the Quadro 6000's legacy as a high-end Fermi part still holds relevance in specific legacy workloads. This analysis breaks down where each card excels, the underlying architectural differences, and what the benchmark results mean for prospective users.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous regarding overall compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins the only head-to-head test available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 scores 36,212 against the Quadro 6000's 9,846, a massive 72.8% advantage. This is not a marginal victory but a complete rout, indicating that the Pascal architecture's improvements in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver optimization are fully realized in this workload.

However, the Quadro 6000's strengths lie outside the modern compute-focused benchmark suite. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus offers a wide memory interface, which historically benefits certain legacy OpenGL applications that rely on large texture datasets and high bit-depth color buffers. The 6000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, ensuring compatibility with older professional software stacks. Its 448 shading units, while far fewer than the P4000's 1,792, are paired with a 204 W TDP, suggesting it was designed for sustained throughput in multi-GPU configurations of its era.

The P4000, conversely, wins on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 105 W TDP and single-slot design make it deployable in dense workstations where the 6000's dual-slot, 204 W footprint would be prohibitive. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and features four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling high-resolution multi-monitor setups. The P4000's 8 GB memory is also 33% larger, which is critical for modern GPU-accelerated rendering and simulation workloads that exceed the 6000's capacity.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different silicon. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process, containing 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The P4000 uses the GP104 chip, built on TSMC's 16 nm process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a smaller 314 mm² die, achieving a density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. This 3.9x improvement in density is the primary enabler of the P4000's higher core counts and clock speeds.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The Quadro 6000 features 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but with a much higher effective memory clock of 7.6 Gbps versus 3 Gbps, it achieves 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth—a 69.7% increase. This memory bandwidth advantage is crucial for the P4000's compute performance, as it can feed its larger shader array more efficiently.

Core configuration is where the generational leap is most apparent. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with peak pixel and texture rates of 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, respectively. The P4000 has 1,792 shading units (4x more), 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with pixel and texture rates of 94.72 GPixel/s and 165.8 GTexel/s. The P4000's FP32 throughput is 5.304 TFLOPS versus the 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, a 5.2x gap. The P4000 also supports FP16 at 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), which the 6000 lacks entirely.

Other differences include the bus interface: the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the P4000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the host transfer bandwidth. The P4000's power requirements are dramatically lower: a 105 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, versus the 6000's 204 W TDP, dual 6-pin and 8-pin connectors, and 550 W suggested PSU. The display outputs also reflect their eras: the 6000 provides 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the P4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, dropping legacy analog support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Quadro P4000 scores 36,212, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, yielding a deltaPct of -72.8% for the 6000. This means the P4000 is approximately 3.7 times faster in this compute workload. The OpenCL test typically exercises raw shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency—all areas where the P4000's Pascal architecture holds overwhelming advantages due to its 4x shading units and 1.7x memory bandwidth.

The data also shows the Quadro 6000's nearest rivals in the overall database. Its average benchmark score of 9,846 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, +0.1% delta), AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, +0.4%), and GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, +0.7%). The only competitor it trails is the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, -1.1%). This clustering indicates that the 6000's compute performance is roughly on par with mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop GPUs from later generations, rather than high-end workstation parts.

For the Quadro P4000, its average benchmark score across all tests is 9,665, which places it near the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, +0.1%), GeForce GTX 960M (9,645, +0.2%), and Quadro K5000 (9,637, +0.3%). It trails the Tesla C2070 (9,716, -0.5%) by a narrow margin. However, this average is skewed by the inclusion of multiple legacy DirectX and 2D tests where the P4000 scores low (e.g., 40 in Passmark DirectX 12, 66 in DirectX 10). Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 36,212 is far above this average, suggesting the average is dragged down by tests that are not representative of modern compute workloads.

The P4000's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,115 and Geekbench Vulkan score of 41,786 further indicate strong modern API performance. Its Passmark G3D score of 11,466 and GPU Compute score of 4,913 show balanced performance across rasterization and compute, though the low DirectX scores (40-181) are puzzling and likely reflect driver or test-specific quirks with the Pascal architecture under legacy API paths.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Quadro P4000 is decisively faster. Its FP32 peak is 5.304 TFLOPS versus the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test 36,212 to 9,846, a 72.8% margin.

Q: Is the Quadro 6000 better for any workload?

A: Based on the data, the 6000 has no benchmark wins. However, its 384-bit memory bus and 6 GB capacity may be sufficient for legacy OpenGL applications that do not scale with shader count, but no test in the pack confirms this advantage.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The P4000 has 8 GB with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the 6000 has 6 GB with 143.4 GB/s. The P4000's bandwidth is 69.7% higher, despite a narrower 256-bit bus, due to faster 7.6 Gbps memory versus 3 Gbps.

Q: What are the power and physical differences?

A: The P4000 is a single-slot card with a 105 W TDP and one 6-pin connector, requiring a 300 W PSU. The 6000 is dual-slot, rated at 204 W, uses a 6-pin and 8-pin connector, and needs a 550 W PSU. The P4000 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do they compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 6000's 9,846 average score is within 1.1% of the M2000M, W5000, GTX 1070, and GTX 870M. The P4000's 9,665 average is within 0.5% of the WX 2100, GTX 960M, K5000, and Tesla C2070, though its OpenCL score of 36,212 far exceeds all these.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear choice for modern compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior card. It delivers a 72.8% higher Geekbench OpenCL score, offers 5.2x more FP32 throughput, 1.7x more memory bandwidth, and does so with a 99 W lower TDP and a smaller physical footprint. Its 8 GB memory and modern API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) make it suitable for current GPU-accelerated applications, while the 6000's lack of Vulkan and older DirectX 11_0 support limits it to legacy software environments.

The Quadro 6000's only defense is its historical role as a high-end Fermi part. Its 6 GB memory on a 384-bit bus and 204 W TDP suggest it was built for compute-heavy tasks of its era, but the benchmark results show it is now overtaken by even mid-range mobile GPUs like the GTX 870M. Users with software that requires the 6000's specific legacy driver paths or S-Video output may find it useful, but for any performance-critical task, the P4000's 5.304 TFLOPS FP32 and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth are overwhelming.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision is based on ecosystem compatibility rather than performance. If the workflow demands modern APIs, high-resolution multi-monitor output via DisplayPort 1.4a, and power efficiency, the P4000 is the only viable option. If the software stack is frozen in a 2010-era OpenGL environment and the 6000's specific display outputs are required, it remains functional but is not competitive on any metric measured here. The percentile ranking of 47 for both cards against all GPUs is misleading; the P4000's modern scores in OpenCL and Vulkan far exceed its legacy test average, while the 6000's single score is consistently low. The verdict is unambiguous: the Quadro P4000 wins on every performance metric, and the Quadro 6000 is a legacy artifact.