NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40c Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 points, while the Tesla K40c scores 17,468 points. The Quadro K6000 leads by 36%, a substantial margin that places it firmly ahead in raw compute workloads as measured by this particular tool. This is the only direct comparison available, so the head-to-head story is a one-sided one.

To contextualize the Quadro K6000's score, its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 19,030 points. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (a 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (-0.1%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at 19,089 (-0.3%), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954 (+0.4%). This places the Quadro K6000 in a tight cluster where small percentage differences separate cards. The 36% lead over the Tesla K40c, however, is far outside that cluster, indicating that the benchmark gap between these two specific cards is substantial.

The Tesla K40c, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 17,468, and its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 460 at 17,509 (-0.2%), the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (-0.5%), the AMD Radeon 780M at 17,588 (-0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (-1%). These deltas are all within 1% of the Tesla, showing that the K40c sits at a performance tier where the surrounding cards are tightly packed. Notably, none of those rivals reach the Quadro K6000's average score, reinforcing that the K6000 belongs to a higher performance bracket.

The Quadro K6000 also has additional benchmark entries beyond the OpenCL test: a Geekbench Metal score of 7,932 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 25,409. These are not part of the head-to-head comparison because the Tesla K40c lacks matching entries in the database. The Vulkan score, in particular, is higher than the OpenCL score, suggesting the architecture handles different compute APIs with varying efficiency. The Tesla K40c has only the OpenCL result recorded, so its cross-API behavior is undocumented.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split in utility. The Quadro K6000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it also holds a higher average benchmark score (19,030 vs 17,468). That 1,562-point gap, approximately 9%, reflects the K6000's stronger synthetic compute performance. In a pure performance comparison, the Quadro K6000 is the winner.

However, the Tesla K40c wins in a different category: power efficiency. The Tesla K40c has a higher TDP of 245 W, while the Quadro K6000's TDP is 225 W. That is a counterintuitive result, as the lower-power card (K6000) delivers higher performance. The Quadro K6000 achieves 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 with 225 W, while the Tesla K40c achieves 5.046 TFLOPS with 245 W. The efficiency ratio favors the Quadro K6000, but the Tesla K40c may still be chosen in compute-only environments where its lack of display outputs is not a limitation.

The use case split is also visible in the display features. The Quadro K6000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a workstation card that can drive monitors. The Tesla K40c has no outputs, so it is strictly a compute accelerator. For a user who needs to run a GUI and a compute workload on the same card, the Quadro K6000 is the only option. For a dedicated compute server that does not require any video signal, the Tesla K40c fits a headless role, but it does not match the K6000's compute scores in the recorded data.

Vulkan and Metal are also potential differentiators. The Quadro K6000 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 25,409, which is 7% higher than its OpenCL score of 23,749. This implies that the card's Vulkan driver is well-optimized. The Tesla K40c has no Vulkan entry, so its Vulkan capability remains unmeasured. For software that leverages Vulkan, the Quadro K6000 has a measurable advantage, but for OpenCL-only workloads, the 36% lead is the only concrete comparison.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same underlying design. They are built on TSMC's 28 nm process node, with 7,080 million transistors on a die size of 561 mm², and a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². They feature the same memory configuration: 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth and 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) memory clock. Both have 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The architecture is Kepler for both, and the APIs support DirectX 12 (with the Quadro K6000 at 11_1 and the Tesla K40c at 11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The differences lie in the chip names and clocks. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip, while the Tesla K40c uses the GK180. The K6000 has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 902 MHz. The Tesla K40c has a base clock of 745 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz. That clock advantage translates into higher pixel and texture rates: the K6000 achieves 54.12 GPixel/s and 216.5 GTexel/s, while the Tesla K40c achieves 52.56 GPixel/s and 210.2 GTexel/s. The K6000 also leads in FP32 throughput: 5.196 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS.

The power connectors differ too. The Quadro K6000 uses 2x 6-pin, while the Tesla K40c uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. The suggested PSU for both is 550 W, but the Tesla's higher TDP (245 W vs 225 W) means it draws more power from those connectors. The physical dimensions are identical in length: both cards are 267 mm (10.5 inches). The Tesla K40c does not have a listed height, while the Quadro K6000 is 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. Both are dual-slot and use PCIe 3.0 x16.

The release dates differ by about two and a half months: the Quadro K6000 launched on 2013-07-22, while the Tesla K40c launched on 2013-10-07. The production status for both is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19,030, while the NVIDIA Tesla K40c has an average benchmark score of 17,468. The difference is 1,562 points, roughly 9% in favor of the K6000.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K6000 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 and the Tesla K40c scores 17,468. The K6000 leads by 36%.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both cards have 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth and a 6 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Which card has a higher TDP?

A:** The Tesla K40c has a TDP of 245 W, while the Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W. The lower-power card, the K6000, also has the higher clock speeds and benchmark scores.

Q: Can the Tesla K40c output to a display?

A:** No, the Tesla K40c has no display outputs. The Quadro K6000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it suitable for display-connected workstation tasks.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance?

A:** The Quadro K6000 achieves 5.196 TFLOPS FP32, while the Tesla K40c achieves 5.046 TFLOPS. The K6000 is about 3% higher in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: Which card has the higher boost clock?

A:** The Quadro K6000 has a boost clock of 902 MHz, while the Tesla K40c has a boost clock of 876 MHz. The base clocks are 797 MHz and 745 MHz, respectively.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points unequivocally to the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 as the better performer. It wins the single head-to-head OpenCL test by 36%, holds a higher average score across all tests, and reaches higher clocks (797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost versus 745 MHz and 876 MHz). Its FP32 throughput is higher at 5.196 TFLOPS, and its pixel and texture rates are higher (54.12 GPixel/s and 216.5 GTexel/s versus 52.56 and 210.2). For any compute workload that relies on OpenCL, the K6000 is the stronger card.

The Quadro K6000 also offers display outputs, so it can function as a workstation GPU for users who need to see their rendering results. The Tesla K40c is headless, which limits its utility to compute-only environments. The K40c's higher TDP (245 W) and lower performance does not give it any functional advantage. The only area where the Tesla K40c is not worse is in memory capacity and bandwidth, where the cards are identical: 12 GB, 384-bit bus, 288.4 GB/s, and 6 Gbps effective.

The Tesla K40c's launch position as a compute card does not show a performance justification in the data. The Quadro K6000 is a better choice for any user who can use a display output, and it is also the better choice for pure compute, given the 36% OpenCL lead. For those who are constrained by a power budget, the K6000 also wins, as it has a lower TDP (225 W) and higher performance.

The Tesla K40c does have a lower average score relative to its nearest rivals, but the same is true for the Quadro K6000 relative to its own rivals. The difference is that the K6000's rivals are all within 0.4% of its average score, while the Tesla's closest rival is 0.2% away and the next is 0.5%. The K6000's score is more stable relative to its competitive set, but that does not change the inherent performance gap between these two cards.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and the NVIDIA Tesla K40c. All other data points are identical.

• Chip: Quadro K6000 uses GK110B, Tesla K40c uses GK180
• Base clock: 797 MHz (K6000) vs 745 MHz (K40c)
• Boost clock: 902 MHz (K6000) vs 876 MHz (K40c)
• Pixel rate: 54.12 GPixel/s (K6000) vs 52.56 GPixel/s (K40c)
• Texture rate: 216.5 GTexel/s (K6000) vs 210.2 GTexel/s (K40c)
• FP32: 5.196 TFLOPS (K6000) vs 5.046 TFLOPS (K40c)
• TDP: 225 W (K6000) vs 245 W (K40c)
• Power connectors: 2x 6-pin (K6000) vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin (K40c)
• Display outputs: 2x DVI + 2x DisplayPort 1.2 (K6000) vs No outputs (K40c)
• DirectX version: 12 (11_1) (K6000) vs 12 (11_0) (K40c)
• Height: 111 mm (K6000) vs not listed (K40c)
• Release date: 2013-07-22 (K6000) vs 2013-10-07 (K40c)
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi (K6000) vs Tesla Fermi (K40c)
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell (K6000) vs Tesla Maxwell (K40c)
• Launch MSRP: 5,265 USD (K6000) vs 7,699 USD (K40c)

The performance differences are all in the K6000's favor, while the Tesla has a higher TDP and a more complex power connector. The K6000's display outputs and lower power draw make it a more versatile and efficient card. The Tesla's higher launch MSRP is not reflected in higher performance, as the data shows the K6000 is faster in every measured metric.