NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla C2070 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 are both built on the same GF100 Fermi architecture, sharing identical core specifications but diverging in their intended market roles. The data shows two professional cards with nearly identical raw compute capabilities, where the differentiation comes down to output features and power characteristics rather than processing muscle.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Quadro 6000 scores 9846 against the Tesla C2070’s 9716. That is a delta of 1.3% in favor of the Quadro 6000, meaning the workstation card leads by roughly 130 points. While this is a narrow margin, it is consistent across the hardware because both cards share the exact same GF100 chip, 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The FP32 compute rating is identical at 1,027.7 GFLOPS, so neither card has a theoretical advantage in raw throughput.

Looking at the rival landscape, the Quadro 6000’s 9846 score places it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9832) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803). It also edges out the GeForce GTX 1070 (9780) by 0.7%. However, the GeForce GTX 870M (9959) beats the Quadro 6000 by 1.1%, which is a notable reversal given that the 870M is a mobile part. The Tesla C2070’s 9716 score sits 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9724) and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9665). It also leads the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653) by 0.7% but trails the GeForce GTX 1070 (9780) by 0.7%.

The head-to-head result shows the Quadro 6000 winning the single benchmark, giving it a 1-0 advantage in wins. The practical impact of that 1.3% delta is minimal for most workloads, but it does establish a consistent pattern: the Quadro 6000 is marginally faster in OpenCL compute tasks. The Tesla C2070’s percentile ranking against all GPUs is 47, identical to the Quadro 6000’s 47th percentile, so both cards occupy the same performance tier relative to the broader market.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is the better choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL performance. Its 9846 score exceeds the Tesla C2070’s 9716 by 1.3%, and it also holds the edge in the nearestRivals comparison, beating the Tesla M10 and Quadro P4000 while the Tesla C2070 only manages to beat those same rivals by smaller margins. The Quadro 6000’s deltaPct against the GeForce GTX 870M is -1.1%, whereas the Tesla C2070’s deltaPct against the same card is not listed, but against the GeForce GTX 1070 the Quadro’s +0.7% is better than the Tesla’s -0.7%.

For buyers who need display outputs, the decision is clear. The Quadro 6000 comes with 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the Tesla C2070 has only 1x DVI. That makes the Quadro 6000 a functional workstation card out of the box, whereas the Tesla C2070 is effectively a compute-only accelerator. The Quadro 6000 also has a lower TDP at 204 W versus the Tesla C2070’s 238 W, which is a 34 W difference that can matter in dense server or workstation builds. Both cards require the same power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) and the same 550 W suggested PSU, so the power supply requirement is unchanged.

The Tesla C2070 has no launch MSRP listed, while the Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD. For compute-focused buyers who never need a display output, the Tesla C2070’s nearly identical performance and lower power draw relative to its sibling might be acceptable, but the data shows no performance advantage to justify choosing it over the Quadro 6000.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins in every measurable benchmark category. It leads the OpenCL test by 1.3%, and it also wins the comparison against the nearest rivals in terms of raw score. The Quadro 6000’s display output configuration (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video) makes it the only one of the two that can drive multiple monitors directly, which is essential for CAD, 3D modeling, and any interactive visualization work. Its lower TDP of 204 W also makes it easier to cool and power in a standard workstation chassis.

The NVIDIA Tesla C2070 does not win any benchmark in this dataset, but it has its own niche. With only 1x DVI output, it is clearly designed for compute clusters where the GPU sits headless in a server. The 238 W TDP is higher than the Quadro 6000’s 204 W, but in a server environment where multiple GPUs are stacked, that difference is often irrelevant because cooling is handled by the chassis. The Tesla C2070’s 9716 score is still respectable, placing it ahead of the Quadro P4000 (9665) and the Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9653). For tasks that involve heavy FP32 compute, such as scientific simulations or data processing, the Tesla C2070 delivers essentially the same throughput as the Quadro 6000, just without the display features.

The data suggests a use-case split: the Quadro 6000 is for professionals who need compute plus display, while the Tesla C2070 is for pure compute environments where display output is irrelevant. If a workload never requires a monitor, the Tesla C2070’s slightly lower score is a non-issue. If a workload requires both compute and visual output, the Quadro 6000 is the only viable option.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9846, which is 1.3% higher than the NVIDIA Tesla C2070’s 9716.

Q: Do the two cards have the same core specifications?

A: Yes, both use the GF100 chip on the Fermi architecture with 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32 compute.

Q: What are the memory specifications of both cards?

A: Both cards have 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth and 747 MHz memory clock (3 Gbps effective).

Q: How does the Quadro 6000 compare to the GeForce GTX 1070?

A: The Quadro 6000 scores 9846, which is 0.7% higher than the GeForce GTX 1070’s 9780. The Tesla C2070 scores 9716, which is 0.7% lower than the GeForce GTX 1070.

Q: Which card has a lower TDP?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W, while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 has a TDP of 238 W.

Q: What display outputs does each card have?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The Tesla C2070 has only 1x DVI.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GF100 chip using the Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 3,100 million on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². There are no differences in the compute core: both have 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, with matching pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (32.14 GTexel/s). The memory subsystem is also identical, with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus delivering 143.4 GB/s bandwidth.

The primary architectural difference is none — the silicon is the same. What differs is the board design and feature set. The Quadro 6000 is part of the Quadro Fermi generation (x000 series) and is classified as a successor to the Quadro FX Tesla line, with its own successor being the Quadro Kepler. The Tesla C2070 belongs to the Tesla Fermi generation (x20xx series), succeeding the original Tesla and leading to the Tesla Kepler.

The process node, foundry, and die size are identical, so any performance difference comes down to firmware or clock behavior rather than hardware. The memory clock is the same 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for both. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for both cards. They also share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support listed.

The physical dimensions differ slightly. Both are 248 mm (9.8 inches) long, but the Quadro 6000 has a listed height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the Tesla C2070’s height is not provided. Both are dual-slot cards with the same power connector layout (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) and the same 550 W suggested PSU.

The release dates differ, with the Quadro 6000 launching on 2010-12-09 and the Tesla C2070 on 2011-07-24. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD, while the Tesla C2070 has no launch MSRP listed. The only meaningful architectural difference in practice is the display output configuration, which reflects their intended markets: the Quadro 6000 for professional visualization and the Tesla C2070 for compute acceleration.