NVIDIA Quadro 6000 vs NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusual and striking picture. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000, a Fermi-era workstation card from late 2010, posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 9,846. The NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition, built on the Volta architecture and released in 2018, shows an average benchmark score of 9,037, which is actually lower than the older card’s single result. This is a case where the raw aggregate score does not tell the full story, as the TITAN V CEO Edition has two separate PassMark entries — a G2D score of 1,086 and a G3D score of 16,988 — while the Quadro 6000 has only the one OpenCL number. The average of the TITAN’s two scores pulls its overall figure down to 9,037, but its 3D-specific result is far ahead of anything the Quadro 6000 can produce.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card further clarifies the situation. The Quadro 6000’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, which scores 9,832, a delta of just 0.1% — effectively a tie. The gap to the AMD FirePro W5000 is 0.4%, and to the GeForce GTX 1070 it is 0.7%. The Quadro 6000 also edges out the GeForce GTX 870M by 1.1%. These are all extremely narrow margins, indicating that the Quadro 6000 sits right at the performance level of mid-range mobile and older desktop GPUs. The TITAN V CEO Edition, by contrast, has nearest rivals like the GeForce GTX 660 (9,022, a 0.2% gap) and the GeForce GTX 560 (9,058, -0.2%), which are far older and less capable cards. This suggests that the TITAN’s average score is heavily weighted by its G2D result, which is not a good indicator of compute or rendering prowess.

The single most decisive number in the head-to-head is the TITAN V CEO Edition’s PassMark G3D score of 16,988. That is a direct measure of 3D graphics performance, and it dwarfs anything the Quadro 6000 can offer, given that the Quadro’s only benchmark is the OpenCL test at 9,846. In terms of raw shading capability, the TITAN V CEO Edition has 5,120 shading units against the Quadro 6000’s 448, and 128 ROPs versus 48. The TITAN’s pixel rate is 186.2 GPixel/s compared to 16.07 GPixel/s on the Quadro, a 11.6x advantage. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 465.6 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s, a 14.5x gap. Floating-point performance tells the same story — the TITAN V CEO Edition delivers 14.90 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro 6000 manages 1,027.7 GFLOPS, which is roughly 14.5x less. The TITAN also has FP16 capability at 29.80 TFLOPS, a feature the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V CEO Edition wins decisively in every compute-heavy and 3D-rendering scenario. Its PassMark G3D score of 16,988 is the standout metric, indicating strong performance in DirectX 12 (12_1) workloads, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 applications. The card’s 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus delivers 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 6x the Quadro 6000’s 143.4 GB/s from 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. This makes the TITAN V CEO Edition suitable for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and memory-intensive compute tasks. The inclusion of 640 tensor cores also gives it a distinct advantage in machine learning and AI inference workloads, something the Quadro 6000 cannot address at all.

The Quadro 6000’s single win is its OpenCL score of 9,846, which is higher than the TITAN V CEO Edition’s average of 9,037. However, this is misleading because the TITAN’s average is dragged down by its G2D score. If you compare the Quadro’s OpenCL result to the TITAN’s G3D result, the TITAN is clearly superior. The Quadro 6000 does have one practical advantage: its 204 W TDP versus the TITAN’s 250 W, and its suggested PSU of 550 W versus 600 W. That means it can be dropped into older systems with smaller power supplies, and its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface is more forgiving of older motherboards. But in terms of actual performance, the Quadro 6000’s era shows its age — it supports DirectX 12 (11_0) only, and has no Vulkan support, whereas the TITAN V CEO Edition supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4.

For users who need pure compute throughput, the TITAN V CEO Edition is the only choice. Its FP32 performance of 14.90 TFLOPS and FP16 of 29.80 TFLOPS are in a different league from the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The TITAN’s 21,100 million transistors on a 12 nm process, versus the Quadro’s 3,100 million on 40 nm, also speaks to architectural advancement. The Quadro 6000’s only realistic use case in modern terms is legacy workstation compatibility or as a display adapter for systems that cannot handle newer drivers — and even then, its 6 GB memory and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth are limiting.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is enormous, spanning nearly eight years of development. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip on the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The TITAN V CEO Edition uses the GV100 chip on the Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process at the same foundry, packing 21,100 million transistors onto an 815 mm² die. Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² on the Quadro versus 25.9M per mm² on the TITAN, a 4.4x improvement in packing efficiency.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divergence. The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN V CEO Edition uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, yielding 868.4 GB/s — a 6x increase in capacity and a 6x increase in bandwidth. The memory clock differs as well: the Quadro runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the TITAN runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). The TITAN’s superior bus width is what really matters here.

Compute resources are vastly different. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The TITAN V CEO Edition has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The TITAN also adds 640 tensor cores, which are dedicated to matrix math for AI workloads. The Quadro has no tensor cores, no RT cores, and no FP16 support. Clock speeds also differ: the Quadro’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data, but the TITAN has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1455 MHz. The TITAN’s pixel rate of 186.2 GPixel/s and texture rate of 465.6 GTexel/s are 11.6x and 14.5x higher than the Quadro’s respective 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s.

The feature set and interface also reflect the generational divide. The Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the TITAN V CEO Edition uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, whereas the TITAN has 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The TITAN supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both cards are dual-slot, use 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, and are end-of-life products. The Quadro’s dimensions are 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the TITAN is 267 mm long, 112 mm high, and 40 mm wide.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition is the superior card for any modern workload. Its PassMark G3D score of 16,988 versus the Quadro 6000’s OpenCL score of 9,846 shows a massive performance lead in 3D rendering. The TITAN’s 14.90 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with 32 GB of HBM2 memory and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, put it in a completely different performance tier. The Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS and 6 GB GDDR5 are relics of a bygone era.

Who should pick the Quadro 6000? Only someone with a legacy system that requires a Fermi-era card for driver compatibility or specific old software, and even then, the 204 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU are the only practical advantages. The card’s 47th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its nearest rivals being the Quadro M2000M and GTX 870M confirm it is firmly in mid-range territory from a decade ago.

Who should pick the TITAN V CEO Edition? Anyone who needs serious compute power — 3D rendering, machine learning, large dataset processing, or high-resolution gaming. Its 45th percentile ranking is misleading because the average includes the low G2D score; the G3D score of 16,988 is what matters. The nearest rivals for the TITAN (GTX 660, GTX 560) are far less capable, indicating that the average score understates its true 3D performance. The 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU are reasonable for a card of this capability, and the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is standard on modern boards. The TITAN V CEO Edition is the only defensible choice for anyone building or upgrading a workstation today.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher raw 3D benchmark score?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition scores 16,988 in PassMark G3D, while the Quadro 6000 has no G3D score — its only benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL at 9,846.

Q: How much faster is the TITAN V CEO Edition in FP32 compute?

A: The TITAN delivers 14.90 TFLOPS FP32, which is roughly 14.5x the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: What memory advantages does the TITAN V CEO Edition have?

A: The TITAN has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, versus 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s on the Quadro 6000.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support, while the TITAN V CEO Edition supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The TITAN V CEO Edition has 21,100 million transistors, compared to 3,100 million on the Quadro 6000.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 6000 was released on 2010-12-09, and the TITAN V CEO Edition on 2018-06-20.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Fermi | Volta |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 868.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 448 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 56 | 320 |

| ROPs | 48 | 128 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 640 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 186.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 465.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 14.90 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 204 W | 250 W |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Length | 248 mm | 267 mm |

| Height | 111 mm | 112 mm |

| Width | Not listed | 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2010-12-09 | 2018-06-20 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | Not listed |