NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20c Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA Tesla K20c over the NVIDIA Quadro 6000. In the sole head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Tesla K20c scores 11,479 points against the Quadro 6000's 9,846 points, a decisive 16.6% advantage. For compute-oriented workloads that leverage OpenCL, the Tesla K20c is the superior choice based on raw performance metrics.

The Tesla K20c also holds a higher overall standing in the database, ranking in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 6000 sits in the 47th percentile. This percentile gap, though modest, reinforces the verdict that the newer Kepler-based card outperforms the older Fermi-based card in general compute tasks. The Tesla K20c's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528, a 0.4% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, a 1.7% difference), show that it competes in a modern performance tier. In contrast, the Quadro 6000's nearest rivals, including the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, a 0.7% difference), place it in a lower performance bracket.

The choice is straightforward: users prioritizing maximum OpenCL compute performance should select the Tesla K20c. The Quadro 6000 retains a niche for legacy compatibility or specific display output needs, but the data does not support it as a performance pick. The Tesla K20c wins the only recorded benchmark, and that win is substantial.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct NVIDIA architectures and fabrication nodes. The Tesla K20c is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK110 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This newer node allows for a transistor count of 7,080 million on a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per mm². The Quadro 6000 uses the older Fermi architecture, based on the GF100 chip, produced on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die measures 529 mm² and contains 3,100 million transistors, resulting in a lower density of 5.9 million transistors per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Tesla K20c features 2,496 shading units, 208 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 40 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro 6000, by contrast, has only 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This nearly 5.6x difference in shading units is the primary driver of the Tesla K20c's performance lead in compute-heavy benchmarks. The Tesla K20c also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, whereas the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed; both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Tesla K20c uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 208.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, but its memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) yields only 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla K20c's memory runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective), giving it a 45% bandwidth advantage despite the narrower bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The Tesla K20c scores 11,479, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. The Tesla K20c wins by 16.6%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Kepler architecture's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate directly into superior OpenCL compute performance.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals clarifies the performance tiers. The Tesla K20c's 11,479 score is just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M (11,528) and 1.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627). It is 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680). Conversely, it is 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261). This places the Tesla K20c in a competitive position against much newer mainstream and high-end cards.

The Quadro 6000's 9,846 score sits in a lower tier. It is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803). It is 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), a notable comparison since the GTX 1070 is a much newer card. However, it is 1.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959). The Quadro 6000's score is roughly 14% lower than the Tesla K20c's, a gap that aligns with the architectural differences in shading units and memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show clear divergences across nearly every major category.

• Process Node: The Tesla K20c uses a 28 nm node; the Quadro 6000 uses a 40 nm node.
• Die Size: The Tesla K20c measures 561 mm²; the Quadro 6000 measures 529 mm².
• Transistors: The Tesla K20c has 7,080 million; the Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million.
• Transistor Density: The Tesla K20c achieves 12.6M / mm²; the Quadro 6000 achieves 5.9M / mm².
• Memory Size: The Tesla K20c has 5 GB; the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: The Tesla K20c uses a 320-bit bus; the Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit bus.
• Memory Clock: The Tesla K20c runs at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective); the Quadro 6000 runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: The Tesla K20c delivers 208.0 GB/s; the Quadro 6000 delivers 143.4 GB/s.
• Shading Units: The Tesla K20c has 2,496; the Quadro 6000 has 448.
• TMUs: The Tesla K20c has 208; the Quadro 6000 has 56.
• ROPs: The Tesla K20c has 40; the Quadro 6000 has 48.
• Pixel Rate: The Tesla K20c achieves 36.71 GPixel/s; the Quadro 6000 achieves 16.07 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The Tesla K20c achieves 146.8 GTexel/s; the Quadro 6000 achieves 32.14 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The Tesla K20c delivers 3.524 TFLOPS; the Quadro 6000 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS.
• TDP: The Tesla K20c is rated at 225 W; the Quadro 6000 is rated at 204 W.
• Physical Length: The Tesla K20c is 267 mm (10.5 inches); the Quadro 6000 is 248 mm (9.8 inches).
• Height: The Tesla K20c has no listed height; the Quadro 6000 is 111 mm (4.4 inches).
• Display Outputs: The Tesla K20c has no outputs; the Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video.
• Vulkan Support: The Tesla K20c supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support.
• Release Date: The Tesla K20c launched on 2012-11-11; the Quadro 6000 launched on 2010-12-09.
• Generation: The Tesla K20c belongs to the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) generation; the Quadro 6000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation.

Both cards share several traits: dual-slot width, 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, a 550 W suggested PSU, PCIe 2.0 x16 bus interface, and a production status of end-of-life. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla K20c scores 11,479 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 16.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846 score.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5, while the Tesla K20c has 5 GB. However, the Quadro 6000's memory bandwidth is lower at 143.4 GB/s compared to the Tesla K20c's 208.0 GB/s.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: No, the Tesla K20c is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the Quadro 6000 is 248 mm long (9.8 inches) and has a listed height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The Tesla K20c does not have a listed height.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: The Tesla K20c has no display outputs. The Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video outputs.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Tesla K20c supports Vulkan, with version 1.2.175. The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The Tesla K20c has a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm², more than double the Quadro 6000's 5.9 million per mm².

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Tesla K20c wins in compute performance and modern API support. The 16.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the decisive factor. Its shading unit count of 2,496 versus 448, combined with 208.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, makes it the clear choice for OpenCL-based workloads such as scientific computing, rendering, or any GPU-accelerated task that relies on raw parallel throughput. The texture rate advantage (146.8 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s) and pixel rate advantage (36.71 GPixel/s vs 16.07 GPixel/s) further cement its dominance in fill-rate-bound tasks. Its Vulkan support adds future-proofing for applications that use that API.

NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins only in specific legacy or display-oriented scenarios. It has 6 GB of memory versus 5 GB, which could be marginally useful for datasets that slightly exceed the Tesla K20c's capacity, though the lower bandwidth mitigates this benefit. It has more ROPs (48 vs 40), giving it a slight edge in raw rasterization throughput for pixel-heavy operations, though its lower pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 36.71 GPixel/s) contradicts this in practice. Its display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video) make it the only viable choice for direct monitor connection, since the Tesla K20c has no outputs. Its lower TDP of 204 W versus 225 W and shorter physical length (248 mm vs 267 mm) could matter in constrained chassis or power-limited systems, but these are minor ergonomic factors.

The data does not support a case for the Quadro 6000 in compute-heavy roles. Its 47th percentile ranking versus the Tesla K20c's 51st percentile, along with the 16.6% benchmark deficit, places it firmly in a lower performance class. The Quadro 6000's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, a 0.7% difference), indicate that it performs at a level comparable to mid-range consumer cards from several generations later. The Tesla K20c, by contrast, trades blows with modern cards like the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627, a 1.3% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, a 1.7% difference), showing that its Kepler architecture remains competitive in OpenCL workloads even against much newer hardware. For any user whose primary metric is compute performance, the Tesla K20c is the unambiguous winner.