NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA T400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 records an average benchmark score of 19,030, while the NVIDIA T400 records 16,508. The K6000 sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, whereas the T400 sits at the 60th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 against the T400's 17,039. That is a 39.4% lead for the K6000, making it the decisive winner in that test.

Q: Does the T400 win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The database shows two head-to-head benchmark entries: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro K6000 wins both, with a 2 to 0 win count.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and type?

A: The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 has 2 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient according to the specifications?

A: The T400 has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors, while the K6000 has a TDP of 225 W and needs two 6-pin power connectors. The suggested PSU for the T400 is 200 W, versus 550 W for the K6000.

Q: How do their release dates compare?

A: The Quadro K6000 was released on July 22, 2013, and is now end-of-life. The T400 was released on May 5, 2021, and is also end-of-life. The K6000's launch MSRP was 5,265 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the T400.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA generations and process nodes. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip built on Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The T400, in contrast, uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, also from TSMC but on a 12 nm node. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 23.5 million per square millimeter.

Compute resources differ sharply. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output pipelines. The T400 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Neither card includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The K6000's pixel rate is 54.12 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 216.5 GTexel/s. The T400's rates are 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s, respectively.

Clock behavior is also distinct. The K6000 runs at a base of 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, while the T400 starts at a much lower 420 MHz base but boosts to 1,425 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the K6000 uses 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), and the T400 uses 1,250 MHz (10 Gbps effective). Despite the T400's higher boost clock and faster effective memory speed, the K6000's far larger memory bus and higher shader count give it the throughput advantage.

API support shows a generational gap. The K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The T400's newer architecture provides a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Physical design and power delivery are entirely different. The K6000 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, requiring two 6-pin connectors and a 550 W PSU. The T400 is a single-slot card with no dimensions recorded, no power connectors, and a 200 W suggested PSU. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K6000 wins in raw compute-heavy workloads. Its average benchmark score is 2,522 points higher than the T400's, and it takes both recorded head-to-head tests. In OpenCL, the K6000 leads by 39.4%, and in Vulkan it leads by 59%. That makes the K6000 the stronger choice for tasks that stress raw FP32 throughput, texture fill, and memory bandwidth. Its 12 GB frame buffer and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth also suggest an advantage for large datasets or high-resolution textures, though the data does not explicitly measure those scenarios.

The T400 wins on operational efficiency and modern feature support. It draws 30 W versus 225 W, needs no auxiliary power, and fits in a single slot. Its Turing architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are newer API versions than the K6000's Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_1). For environments where space, power, or cooling are constrained, or where newer API features are required, the T400 is the practical choice despite lower benchmark scores.

The T400 also has a higher transistor density (23.5M / mm² vs 12.6M / mm²), indicating a more modern design, and it boosts to a higher clock speed (1,425 MHz vs 902 MHz). However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 | NVIDIA T400 |

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

| Chip | GK110B | TU117 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Turing |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 420 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 1,425 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 384 |

| TMUs | 240 | 24 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 54.12 GPixel/s | 22.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 216.5 GTexel/s | 34.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.196 TFLOPS | 1,094.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 200 W |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm / 10.5 inches length, 111 mm / 4.4 inches height | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2021-05-05 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Workstation Ampere |

| Launch MSRP | 5,265 USD | Not recorded |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two direct benchmark comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 against the T400's 17,039. The delta is 39.4% in favor of the K6000. This is a substantial margin, driven by the K6000's much larger shader count (2,880 vs 384) and its 384-bit memory bus, which provides 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.00 GB/s.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the K6000 scores 25,409 and the T400 scores 15,976. The K6000 leads by 59%, an even larger margin than in OpenCL. The T400's newer Vulkan 1.4 API support does not help it in this test, as the K6000's raw compute resources dominate. The K6000's average benchmark score of 19,030 is also higher than the T400's 16,508, a gap of 2,522 points.

Relative to all GPUs, the K6000 sits at the 63rd percentile and the T400 at the 60th. The nearest rivals for the K6000 are the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (average score 19,036, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089, -0.3%), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, 0.4%). The T400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 (16,504, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 (16,415, 0.6%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell (16,408, 0.6%), and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (16,361, 0.9%). These proximity values show that both cards are tightly grouped with their respective competitors, but the K6000 operates in a higher performance tier overall.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the faster card. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 39.4% lead in OpenCL and a 59% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 19,030, which is 15.3% higher than the T400's 16,508. For any workload that prioritizes raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or texture fill, the K6000 is the correct choice. Its 12 GB of memory and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth provide a strong foundation for data-intensive tasks, and its 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 performance dwarfs the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS.

The T400 is not without merit. It draws only 30 W, requires no power connectors, and fits in a single slot, making it far easier to integrate into compact or power-limited systems. It also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which may be necessary for certain modern software stacks. Its boost clock of 1,425 MHz and 10 Gbps effective memory speed indicate a more efficient design, but these advantages do not overcome the K6000's massive lead in shader count and memory bus width.

The verdict depends on the use case. If the requirement is maximum compute performance from the recorded benchmarks, the Quadro K6000 wins decisively. If the requirement is minimal power draw, single-slot footprint, and newer API support, the T400 is the sensible pick. The data shows no scenario in which the T400 outperforms the K6000 in raw benchmark scores, so the K6000 remains the performance leader in this comparison.