NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA T400 4 GB Comparison

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and NVIDIA T400 4 GB represent two very different eras of NVIDIA's GPU design. The K6000 uses the GK110B chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The T400, in contrast, relies on the TU117 chip from the Turing architecture, also produced by TSMC but on a 12 nm node. Its transistor count is 4,700 million on a much smaller 200 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5M per mm², nearly double that of the older part.

The architectural gap shows up clearly in feature support. 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. Turing brings a more modern feature set, including newer API revisions. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those are absent from both.

The K6000 is built around a massive compute array: 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The T400 is far leaner with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This is not a fair fight on raw hardware resources, and the benchmark numbers reflect that. The K6000's Kepler design was aimed at high-end professional compute and visualization, while the T400's TU117 silicon was designed for low-power entry-level workstation duties.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The T400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The K6000's memory subsystem is far wider and faster, though the T400's GDDR6 operates at a higher effective speed of 10 Gbps compared to the K6000's 6 Gbps. The K6000 also has a much larger frame buffer, which matters for large datasets and multi-display setups.

Power and physical design reflect the different missions. The K6000 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors plus a 550 W suggested power supply. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The T400 is a single-slot card with a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 200 W suggested power supply. It is significantly more compact, though exact dimensions are not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The K6000's base clock is 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, while the T400's base clock is 420 MHz but boosts to 1,425 MHz. The T400's boost clock is much higher, but that does not compensate for the K6000's massive core count advantage.

Memory size: 12 GB versus 4 GB. Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 384 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth: 288.4 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s. The K6000 leads in all of these except the memory type, where the T400 uses a newer standard.

Compute rates tell the story. The K6000 achieves 5.196 TFLOPS FP32, while the T400 manages 1,094.4 GFLOPS FP32. The K6000 also posts 54.12 GPixel/s pixel rate and 216.5 GTexel/s texture rate. The T400 posts 22.80 GPixel/s and 34.20 GTexel/s. The T400 does have FP16 support at 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), which the K6000 lacks entirely, a Turing-era addition.

Display outputs differ: the K6000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the T400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16. The K6000 launched on 2013-07-22 with a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD. The T400 launched on 2021-05-05 with no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products, with the K6000 succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell, while the T400 succeeds Quadro Volta and precedes Workstation Ampere.

Where Each One Wins

The K6000 wins on raw compute performance in every recorded benchmark. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 23,749 against the T400's 17,320, a 37.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 25,409 against 16,263, a 56.2% advantage. The K6000 takes both head-to-head wins.

The K6000's strengths lie in heavy parallel workloads. Its 2,880 shading units and 48 ROPs make it suitable for tasks that scale with massive parallelism, such as large-scale rendering, scientific simulation, or complex CAD visualization. Its 12 GB frame buffer and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle large textures and datasets without swapping, which is critical for professional workstation use with multiple high-resolution displays.

The T400's wins are in efficiency and modern features. It draws only 30 W, needs no auxiliary power connectors, and fits in a single slot. It supports newer Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) APIs, plus FP16 compute. For a compact workstation or a system with limited power and space, the T400 is the practical choice. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB memory are modest, but for 2D CAD, basic 3D previews, or multi-monitor office use, it is sufficient.

The data does not show the T400 winning any benchmark, so the use-case split is about workload fit versus absolute performance. If the job requires the K6000's compute headroom, the T400 will fall short. If the job is light and the priority is low power and small size, the T400 is the better physical fit, even though it loses on raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 versus the T400's 17,320, a 37.1% difference in favor of the K6000.

Q: Does the T400 support newer graphics APIs than the K6000?

A: Yes. The T400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The T400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The K6000 has a 225 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors with a 550 W suggested power supply. The T400 has a 30 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and has a 200 W suggested power supply.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The K6000 was released on 2013-07-22, and the T400 was released on 2021-05-05.

Q: Does the T400 have any compute advantage over the K6000?

A: The T400 supports FP16 compute at 2.189 TFLOPS (2:1), which the K6000 does not offer at all. However, the K6000's FP32 performance of 5.196 TFLOPS far exceeds the T400's 1,094.4 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these cards, and the K6000 wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the K6000 scores 23,749 against the T400's 17,320. That is a 37.1% gap. The K6000's 2,880 shading units and 216.5 GTexel/s texture rate give it a massive throughput advantage that shows up clearly in this compute-oriented test. The T400's higher boost clock of 1,425 MHz cannot overcome its 384 shading units and 34.20 GTexel/s texture rate.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The K6000 scores 25,409, while the T400 scores 16,263, a 56.2% difference. Vulkan workloads often benefit from balanced hardware, and the K6000's 48 ROPs and 288.4 GB/s memory bandwidth likely contribute to its stronger showing. The T400's 16 ROPs and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth are bottlenecks in this scenario. Notably, the K6000 also has a higher pixel rate (54.12 GPixel/s versus 22.80 GPixel/s), which can matter for fill-rate-bound Vulkan tasks.

The K6000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,030, placing it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The T400's average is 16,792, at the 60th percentile. The K6000 sits near rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, 0.4% delta). The T400 sits near the AMD Radeon RX 7600S (16,696, 0.6% delta), the NVIDIA Tesla M4 (16,932, -0.8% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019, -1.3% delta). The K6000's rival group is a full tier above the T400's, confirming that the older card occupies a higher performance bracket despite its age.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 outperforms the NVIDIA T400 4 GB in every recorded benchmark. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the K6000 leads by 37.1% and 56.2% respectively. Its 12 GB frame buffer, 384-bit bus, and 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 make it the stronger compute card by a wide margin.

The T400 is not without merit. Its 30 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it a far easier card to install in compact systems. It brings modern API support, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), plus FP16 capability. For a low-power workstation handling light 3D, multi-monitor setups, or basic video decode, the T400 is a sensible choice.

The choice depends on the workload. If the task demands heavy parallel compute, large textures, or high-bandwidth memory access, the K6000 is the only option that fits. If the system is power-constrained, space-limited, or the workload is light, the T400's efficiency and compactness win. The K6000's 5,265 USD launch MSRP reflects its high-end positioning, though both cards are now end-of-life.

For a builder with a full-size workstation and a power budget to match, the K6000 delivers far more performance. For a builder assembling a small, quiet, low-power machine, the T400 is the practical pick. The benchmark scores do not leave room for debate on raw performance, but the T400's modern features and minimal footprint give it a distinct role in a professional environment.