NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla K80 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and NVIDIA Tesla K80 are both end-of-life professional Kepler cards, but benchmark data shows they serve completely different purposes. The Quadro K6000 is the decisive winner in every shared benchmark, leading by 27.5% in OpenCL and 33% in Vulkan, yet the Tesla K80 remains competitive in aggregate scoring due to its own strengths. The data indicates the K6000 is the superior compute performer, while the K80 offers a distinct dual-GPU architecture that the benchmarks do not fully capture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Quadro K6000 wins both available comparisons outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K6000 scores 23,749 against the Tesla K80’s 18,620, a 27.5% advantage. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the K6000 reaches 25,409 versus 19,111 for the K80, a 33% lead. These are substantial margins, not marginal differences.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 33% delta means the K6000 delivers roughly one-third more performance in that API, which exercises compute and graphics paths simultaneously. The OpenCL margin of 27.5% confirms the trend is consistent across different compute frameworks. The K80 never manages a single win in the shared tests; its two benchmark entries (OpenCL and Vulkan) both fall behind.

Looking at aggregate scores, the picture softens slightly. The K6000’s average benchmark score is 19,030, while the K80 averages 18,866. That is a 0.9% difference, which is nearly negligible in real-world terms. The K6000’s nearest rival list includes the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (-0.1%), showing the K6000 sits in a tight cluster of modern mid-range GPUs. The K80’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 at 18,789 (0.4% delta) and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18,954 (-0.5%), placing it slightly below the K6000 but still within a competitive band.

The delta percentages between the two cards themselves are stark. The K6000 outperforms the K80 by 27.5% in OpenCL and 33% in Vulkan, yet the aggregate difference is only 0.9%. This suggests the K80 has other qualities that boost its average score, likely related to its dual-GPU design, which the head-to-head tests may not fully exploit.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA’s 28 nm process at TSMC, with nearly identical die sizes: the K6000 uses the GK110B chip at 561 mm², and the K80 uses the GK210 at the same 561 mm². Transistor counts are also close, with the K6000 at 7,080 million and the K80 at 7,100 million, yielding transistor densities of 12.6M / mm² and 12.7M / mm² respectively. The architectural lineage differs, however: the K6000 belongs to the Kepler generation, while the K80 is labeled Kepler 2.0.

Core configurations diverge significantly. The K6000 packs 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The K80 has fewer cores overall: 2,496 shading units, 208 TMUs, but the same 48 ROPs. Clock speeds tell a more complex story. The K6000 runs at a base clock of 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, while the K80 operates at a much lower base of 562 MHz but boosts to 824 MHz. The K6000’s higher base clock gives it a substantial advantage in sustained workloads, while the K80’s boost behavior suggests it relies on thermal headroom to approach peak performance.

Memory configurations are identical in capacity and type: both have 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The K6000 achieves 288.4 GB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the K80 manages 240.6 GB/s at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). That 47.8 GB/s difference directly impacts throughput in memory-bound tasks.

The K80’s defining feature is absent from the specification table: it is a dual-GPU card, meaning each GK210 die operates with its own 12 GB allocation. The listed 12 GB is per GPU, which explains why the K80’s TDP is 300 W versus the K6000’s 225 W, and why it requires a 700 W suggested PSU against the K6000’s 550 W. Power connectors differ too: the K6000 uses 2x 6-pin, while the K80 uses a single 8-pin.

Other differences are practical. The K6000 has display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a workstation card you can plug monitors into. The K80 has no outputs at all, confirming its role as a headless compute accelerator. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so API compatibility is identical.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K6000 wins outright in raw compute benchmarks. Its 27.5% OpenCL advantage and 33% Vulkan advantage are decisive, and its higher clock speeds (797 MHz base versus 562 MHz) and greater core count (2,880 versus 2,496) explain why. The K6000 also has higher memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s versus 240.6 GB/s, which helps in texture-heavy or data-intensive workloads. For single-GPU tasks, the K6000 is the clear choice.

The Tesla K80’s wins are architectural rather than benchmark-based. Its dual-GPU design, while not reflected in the head-to-head scores, means it can handle two independent compute tasks simultaneously. The K80’s lower base clock (562 MHz) is offset by its boost clock of 824 MHz, which is closer to the K6000’s 902 MHz boost. In scenarios where the benchmark harness only uses one GPU, the K80 appears slower; in real-world multi-GPU deployments, the second die effectively doubles throughput.

The K80 also has a slight transistor advantage (7,100 million versus 7,080 million) and a marginally higher transistor density (12.7M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm²), though these differences are negligible. The K80’s 300 W TDP and 700 W PSU requirement suggest it is designed for server racks with ample power, not desktop workstations. The K6000, with its 225 W TDP and display outputs, fits a workstation chassis with a monitor attached.

In terms of aggregate benchmark scores, the K6000 edges ahead at 19,030 versus 18,866, a 0.9% margin. That puts both cards at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, tying them in overall standing. The K6000’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6600, scores 19,036 (0% delta), meaning the K6000 is effectively on par with that modern card. The K80’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 at 18,789 (0.4% delta), showing it also competes with recent mainstream GPUs despite being older.

The Verdict

Data-driven conclusions are clear. Pick the Quadro K6000 if you need a single-GPU card with display outputs and maximum compute performance per die. Its 27.5% OpenCL and 33% Vulkan leads over the K80 are the strongest evidence, supported by higher clocks (797 MHz base vs 562 MHz), more shading units (2,880 vs 2,496), and greater memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 240.6 GB/s). The K6000 also has a lower TDP at 225 W versus 300 W, making it easier to cool and power in a workstation.

Pick the Tesla K80 if your workload scales across multiple GPUs and does not require video outputs. The K80’s dual-GPU design is its primary advantage, effectively giving you two 12 GB memory pools and two compute engines in a single slot. Its lower aggregate score (18,866 vs 19,030) is a 0.9% penalty, but that gap may vanish in multi-GPU scenarios where the second die is utilized. The K80 also has the higher transistor count (7,100 million vs 7,080 million) and a newer Kepler 2.0 architecture, though the practical impact is minor.

Neither card has a clear advantage in API support, both hitting DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The K6000’s launch MSRP was 5,265 USD, a figure that highlights its workstation positioning. The K80 has no launch MSRP listed, reflecting its server-oriented sales channel.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 versus the Tesla K80’s 18,620, a 27.5% advantage for the K6000.

Q: Does the Tesla K80 have display outputs?

A: No, the K80 has no outputs at all. The Quadro K6000 includes 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The K6000 achieves 288.4 GB/s, while the K80 reaches 240.6 GB/s. Both use 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but the K6000’s memory clock is higher at 1502 MHz versus 1253 MHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The K6000 has a 225 W TDP requiring a 550 W PSU, while the K80 has a 300 W TDP and needs a 700 W PSU. The K80 also uses a single 8-pin connector versus the K6000’s 2x 6-pin.

Q: Are their aggregate benchmark scores close?

A: Yes, the K6000 averages 19,030 and the K80 averages 18,866, a 0.9% difference. Both sit at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, while the K80 has 2,496. The K6000 also has 240 TMUs versus 208, but both have 48 ROPs.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 | NVIDIA Tesla K80 |

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

| Chip | GK110B | GK210 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler 2.0 |

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

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 7,100 million |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 824 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 240.6 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,880 | 2,496 |

| TMUs | 240 | 208 |

| Pixel Rate | 54.12 GPixel/s | 42.85 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 216.5 GTexel/s | 171.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.196 TFLOPS | 4.113 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 300 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 700 W |

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

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

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2014-11-16 |

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