NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K20m Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K20m and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 are both Kepler-generation compute cards from 2013, but the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy. The Quadro K6000 leads in every head-to-head test, yet the Tesla K20m holds its ground in the overall average score. This page analyzes the available benchmark results, architectural differences, and use-case implications derived strictly from the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison includes two synthetic tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the Quadro K6000 emerges as the winner, but the margin varies significantly by workload type.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 against the Tesla K20m's 16,241. This is a 31.6% delta in favor of the Quadro. OpenCL is a compute-heavy API, and the 31.6% gap suggests the Quadro's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate directly into raw throughput advantages. The Tesla K20m's 16,241 is not a weak score, but it sits firmly behind in this compute-centric test. The deltaPct of -31.6% (from the Tesla's perspective) indicates a substantial deficit.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows considerably. The Quadro K6000 scores 25,409, while the Tesla K20m scores 21,936. The delta here is -13.7% for the Tesla. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API that often stresses different aspects of the GPU, such as draw call handling and memory layout. The narrower margin suggests the Tesla K20m is relatively more competitive in graphics-oriented tasks than in pure compute. Still, the Quadro wins both tests, giving it a 2-0 record in the head-to-head.

The overall average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Tesla K20m has an average benchmark score of 19,089, while the Quadro K6000 averages 19,030. This is a razor-thin 0.3% difference, with the Tesla actually edging out the Quadro by 59 points. This is curious: the Quadro wins both individual tests, yet the Tesla has a higher average. The explanation lies in the number of tests. The Tesla has two benchmark results (16,241 and 21,936), while the Quadro has three (7,932 in Metal, 23,749 in OpenCL, and 25,409 in Vulkan). The Quadro's Metal score of 7,932 is significantly lower and pulls its average down. This implies that on Apple's Metal API, the Quadro performs poorly, dragging its overall average below the Tesla's. The Tesla has no Metal score in the data, so its average is purely from OpenCL and Vulkan.

Looking at the nearest rivals, both cards sit in a tight performance cluster. The Tesla K20m's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile with an average score of 19,049 (a 0.2% delta), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (0.3%), the Quadro K6000 at 19,030 (0.3%), and the GeForce GTX 780 at 19,164 (-0.4%). The Quadro K6000's nearest rivals include the RX 6600 at 19,036 (0% delta), the RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (-0.1%), the Tesla K20m at 19,089 (-0.3%), and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954 (0.4%). Both cards are essentially mid-pack performers, sitting at the 63rd and 64th percentiles of all GPUs. The data shows that while the Quadro dominates the Tesla in direct head-to-head tests, the overall average places them within a hair's breadth of each other.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using a 28 nm process at TSMC. They share the same transistor count of 7,080 million and the same die size of 561 mm², resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The fundamental silicon is the same, but the configurations diverge significantly.

The chip names differ: the Tesla K20m uses the GK110, while the Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B. The "B" suffix typically indicates a later revision with higher binning or minor tweaks, and the data supports this. The Quadro K6000 has a fully enabled configuration with 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster output units (ROPs). The Tesla K20m is cut down to 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is a difference of 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has 15.4% more shading units and 15.4% more TMUs, while the ROP count difference is 20%.

Clock speeds also favor the Quadro. The Tesla K20m has no listed base or boost clock in the data, but its memory clock is 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The Quadro K6000 has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 902 MHz, with a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Quadro's memory runs at a higher effective speed, and its memory bus is wider: 384 bit versus the Tesla's 320 bit. This combination yields a memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s for the Quadro versus 208.0 GB/s for the Tesla — a 38.7% advantage for the Quadro.

The compute rates reflect these differences. The Quadro K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla K20m delivers 3.524 TFLOPS. That is a 47.5% advantage for the Quadro. The pixel rate is 54.12 GPixel/s on the Quadro versus 36.71 GPixel/s on the Tesla, and the texture rate is 216.5 GTexel/s versus 146.8 GTexel/s. In every computational metric, the Quadro is significantly ahead.

Memory capacity is another major differentiator. The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the Tesla K20m has 5 GB. Both use GDDR5, but the Quadro's 12 GB is 2.4 times larger. This is crucial for large datasets in professional workloads.

The bus interface also differs: the Tesla K20m uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Quadro K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. PCIe 3.0 offers double the bandwidth of PCIe 2.0, which can matter for data transfer to and from the host system. Both cards share the same TDP of 225 W and the same suggested PSU of 550 W. They are both dual-slot cards with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The power connectors differ: the Tesla uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin, while the Quadro uses 2x 6-pin.

The feature sets also differ slightly. The Quadro K6000 has display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the Tesla K20m has no outputs — it is a compute-only card. The DirectX support differs slightly: the Tesla supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro's generation is "Quadro Kepler (Kx000)", while the Tesla's is "Tesla Kepler (Kxx)". The Tesla's predecessor is Tesla Fermi and successor is Tesla Maxwell; the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Quadro K6000 wins in both head-to-head tests, but the use-case split requires nuance.

Compute-heavy workloads (OpenCL): The Quadro K6000 wins decisively with a 31.6% lead in OpenCL. The Quadro's higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and higher FP32 throughput (5.196 TFLOPS vs 3.524 TFLOPS) make it the clear choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks. This includes scientific simulations, data analysis, and rendering workloads that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose computation. The Tesla K20m's 3.524 TFLOPS is respectable, but it is 47.5% lower than the Quadro's, and the benchmark confirms this gap.

Graphics-oriented workloads (Vulkan): The Quadro K6000 still wins in Vulkan, but by a smaller margin of 13.7%. The Tesla K20m's score of 21,936 is closer to the Quadro's 25,409, suggesting that the Tesla is relatively more capable in graphics-adjacent tasks. However, the Quadro's higher pixel rate (54.12 GPixel/s vs 36.71 GPixel/s) and texture rate (216.5 GTexel/s vs 146.8 GTexel/s) give it a fundamental advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads. The Tesla's lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable for any interactive graphics work, but its Vulkan score suggests it can handle compute-in-graphics APIs competently.

Metal workloads: The Quadro K6000 has a Metal score of 7,932, which is notably low compared to its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The Tesla K20m has no Metal score in the data. This is a significant data point: the Quadro's Metal performance is poor, and this drags its average benchmark score below the Tesla's. For users on Apple platforms, the Quadro would be a poor choice, while the Tesla's lack of a Metal score makes it an unknown quantity.

Memory capacity: The Quadro K6000's 12 GB memory is a major advantage over the Tesla's 5 GB. For workloads that require large datasets to reside in GPU memory, such as deep learning training or large-scale scientific computing, the Quadro's 2.4x capacity is a decisive factor. The Tesla's 5 GB would force more frequent data transfers over the slower PCIe 2.0 interface, further hurting performance.

Overall average: Despite losing both head-to-head tests, the Tesla K20m has a higher average benchmark score (19,089 vs 19,030). This is entirely due to the Quadro's low Metal score. If Metal is not a relevant workload, the Quadro is the better performer in the other two tests. But the data shows that the Tesla is not far behind in the overall picture.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Quadro K6000 wins both tests. It scores 23,749 to the Tesla's 16,241 in Geekbench OpenCL (a 31.6% delta), and 25,409 to 21,936 in Geekbench Vulkan (a 13.7% delta).

Q: Why does the Tesla K20m have a higher average benchmark score than the Quadro K6000?

A: The Tesla averages 19,089, while the Quadro averages 19,030. The Quadro has three benchmark scores, including a low Metal score of 7,932, which pulls its average down. The Tesla has two scores (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which are moderately high.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the Tesla K20m has 5 GB. The Quadro also has a wider 384-bit bus versus the Tesla's 320-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 208.0 GB/s.

Q: Are these cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They share the same 7,080 million transistors and 561 mm² die size. However, the Quadro uses the GK110B chip with more enabled units, while the Tesla uses the GK110.

Q: Does the Tesla K20m have any display outputs?

A: No, the Tesla K20m has no display outputs. The Quadro K6000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: How do these cards compare to modern GPUs in the nearest rivals list?

A: Both cards sit near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049 average) and AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036 average). The Tesla is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 4050 Mobile, and the Quadro is 0.1% behind it. Both are within a tight cluster of performance.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the Quadro K6000 is the more powerful card in direct comparison. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a 47.5% higher FP32 throughput (5.196 TFLOPS vs 3.524 TFLOPS), 38.7% more memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 208.0 GB/s), and 2.4x more memory capacity (12 GB vs 5 GB). It also supports PCIe 3.0 versus the Tesla's PCIe 2.0, and has display outputs, making it a more versatile card.

However, the Tesla K20m is not without merit. Its average benchmark score is slightly higher due to the Quadro's poor Metal showing. If your workload is Vulkan-based, the Tesla is within 13.7% of the Quadro, and its lower shading unit count is partially offset by its competitive performance in that API. The Tesla also has a lower launch MSRP: 3,199 USD versus the Quadro's 5,265 USD.

For most users, the Quadro K6000 is the superior choice. The data shows it wins in every head-to-head test, and its architectural advantages (more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, wider memory bus, higher clocks) are substantial. The 12 GB memory capacity is a massive advantage for large-scale compute. The only scenario where the Tesla might be preferable is if you are on a platform where Metal is the primary API, but the Tesla has no Metal score, so that is speculative. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the Quadro is the definitive winner based on the benchmark results.

The percentile ranks are nearly identical (64th for the Tesla, 63rd for the Quadro), indicating they occupy the same performance tier in the broader GPU landscape. But within that tier, the Quadro is the top performer in the tested workloads. Choose the Quadro K6000 if you need the highest compute throughput and memory capacity. The Tesla K20m is a reasonable alternative for Vulkan-centric tasks, but the data does not support choosing it over the Quadro for any head-to-head workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Tesla K20m | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 |

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

| Chip | GK110 | GK110B |

| Generation | Tesla Kepler (Kxx) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 902 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 5 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 208.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2496 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 208 | 240 |

| ROPs | 40 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 36.71 GPixel/s | 54.12 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 146.8 GTexel/s | 216.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.524 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 6-pin |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-01-04 | 2013-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | 3,199 USD | 5,265 USD |

| Benchmark Scores | OpenCL: 16241, Vulkan: 21936 | Metal: 7932, OpenCL: 23749, Vulkan: 25409 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 19089 | 19030 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 64 | 63 |