NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K40m Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla K40m and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 are both Kepler-generation professional GPUs built on the same GK110B chip, yet they serve distinctly different markets. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the Quadro K6000 is the faster card in raw compute, while the Tesla K40m sits marginally behind in the one shared test. For buyers, the choice hinges on whether the priority is maximum compute throughput or a specific feature set tied to each product line. The K6000 holds the performance crown, but the K40m remains a viable data-center option. The average benchmark scores place the K6000 at 19,030 and the K40m at 19,885, with the K40m actually holding a higher average, though this is due to the differing benchmark suites available for each card.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the superior choice for raw processing power. In the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the K6000 scores 23,749 against the Tesla K40m’s 19,885, a decisive 16.3% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial gap that positions the K6000 as the faster card for compute workloads that utilize OpenCL. The K40m’s only benchmark score is that same OpenCL result, meaning it has no countering win in any other test.

However, the K40m is not without merit. Its percentile ranking against all GPUs is 65, slightly higher than the K6000’s 63. This suggests that while the K6000 wins the direct comparison, the K40m sits in a slightly better position relative to the broader GPU landscape, likely due to the specific mix of scores used to calculate that percentile. For a user whose primary concern is OpenCL performance, the Quadro K6000 is the clear pick. For those who need a card with no display outputs for a headless server environment, the Tesla K40m is the only one of the two that fits that specific requirement, as its display outputs are listed as “No outputs.” The verdict is simple: the Quadro K6000 wins on performance, but the Tesla K40m wins on its intended deployment scenario.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on the GK110B chip, use the Kepler architecture, and are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC. The transistor count is identical at 7,080 million, and the die size is the same at 561 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units are also identical: 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their Kepler generation.

The key architectural differences lie in their clock speeds and power profiles. The Quadro K6000 has a higher base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 902 MHz, compared to the Tesla K40m’s 745 MHz base and 876 MHz boost. This clock advantage directly translates to the K6000’s higher pixel rate (54.12 GPixel/s vs. 52.56 GPixel/s), texture rate (216.5 GTexel/s vs. 210.2 GTexel/s), and FP32 performance (5.196 TFLOPS vs. 5.046 TFLOPS). Interestingly, the K6000 achieves this higher performance with a lower TDP of 225 W, versus the K40m’s 245 W. The memory configuration is identical: 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth and a 1502 MHz memory clock (6 Gbps effective). The API support is also the same, with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The generational lineage differs, with the K40m being part of the Tesla Kepler (Kxx) line and the K6000 part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) line.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the available benchmark data, the Quadro K6000 wins in every direct comparison. It has a single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, and it wins that by a significant margin. The K6000 also has additional benchmark scores in Geekbench Metal (7,932) and Geekbench Vulkan (25,409), which are tests the K40m does not have data for. While these cannot be directly compared, they show the K6000’s versatility across different compute APIs. The K40m, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins to its name in this dataset.

In a broader sense, the K40m’s win is its positioning. Its percentile of 65 against all GPUs is higher than the K6000’s 63, indicating that relative to the entire population of GPUs tested, the K40m performs better than the K6000 does. This could be due to the specific benchmark scores used in the percentile calculation, but it is a meaningful distinction. The K40m’s lack of display outputs makes it the choice for a compute-only server, while the K6000’s 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it suitable for a workstation with visual output needs. For users prioritizing OpenCL performance, the K6000 is the winner. For users prioritizing a higher percentile ranking or a headless compute setup, the K40m has its place.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is faster, scoring 23,749 compared to the Tesla K40m’s 19,885, a difference of 16.3%.

Q: Do the two cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s.

Q: What are the display output differences?

A: The Tesla K40m has no display outputs, while the Quadro K6000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has a higher power consumption rating?

A: The Tesla K40m has a higher TDP of 245 W, while the Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare between the two?

A: The Tesla K40m has an average benchmark score of 19,885, which is higher than the Quadro K6000’s average of 19,030.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card in TFLOPS?

A: The Quadro K6000 achieves 5.196 TFLOPS, while the Tesla K40m achieves 5.046 TFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive win for the Quadro K6000. The K6000 scores 23,749, while the Tesla K40m scores 19,885. This represents a 16.3% advantage for the K6000, a substantial margin that clearly demonstrates its superior compute capability in this API. The deltaPct of -16.3 indicates the K40m is 16.3% behind the K6000. This single result is the most important data point in this comparison, as it is the only direct numerical evidence of performance difference.

Beyond this head-to-head, the K6000 also has scores in Geekbench Metal (7,932) and Geekbench Vulkan (25,409), which the K40m lacks. While these cannot be directly compared, they suggest the K6000 is a more well-rounded card for various compute workloads. The K40m’s single OpenCL score of 19,885 is its only benchmark result. In terms of nearest rivals, the K40m’s closest competitor is the AMD FirePro W7000, which scores 19,905, a negligible 0.1% difference. The K6000’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600, scoring 19,036, a 0% difference. This shows that while the two cards are in similar performance tiers relative to their respective rivals, the K6000’s direct win over the K40m is the dominant factor in their comparison.

Specification Differences

The core compute specifications differ only in clock speeds and derived rates. The Quadro K6000 has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 902 MHz, while the Tesla K40m has a base clock of 745 MHz and a boost clock of 876 MHz. This leads to the K6000’s higher pixel rate of 54.12 GPixel/s versus the K40m’s 52.56 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 216.5 GTexel/s versus 210.2 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 5.196 TFLOPS versus 5.046 TFLOPS. The power consumption also differs, with the K40m rated at 245 W and the K6000 at 225 W. The K6000 uses 2x 6-pin power connectors, while the K40m has no power connector data listed.

The memory, process node, transistor count, die size, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and API support are identical. The physical dimensions vary slightly in that the K6000 has a listed height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the K40m has no height data. Both are dual-slot cards with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches). The display outputs are a major difference, with the K40m having none and the K6000 offering 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The bus interface is the same PCIe 3.0 x16, and both have a suggested PSU of 550 W. The release dates differ, with the K6000 launching on 2013-07-22 and the K40m on 2013-11-21. The launch MSRP for the K40m is 7,699 USD, while the K6000 is 5,265 USD. Both cards are end-of-life, with the K40m having a successor of Tesla Maxwell and the K6000 a successor of Quadro Maxwell.