NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two legacy NVIDIA accelerators. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the stronger compute card, leading in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The NVIDIA Tesla M4 is the efficiency-focused alternative, with dramatically lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint. For users prioritizing raw throughput in OpenCL workloads, the K6000 is the obvious choice. For deployments where power and space are constrained, the M4 offers a compelling, albeit slower, option. The K6000 wins the compute crown, while the M4 wins on practicality.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively. It scored 23,749 points against the Tesla M4's 16,932 points, a 40.3% advantage.

Q: How does each card compare to its own closest rivals?

A: The K6000's average benchmark score of 19,030 is nearly identical to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6600, which scores 19,036 (a 0% delta). The Tesla M4's average score of 16,932 is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7970M (17,019) and 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 (17,037).

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two cards?

A: The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M4 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 88.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K6000 has a 225 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors plus a 550 W suggested power supply. The Tesla M4 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The Tesla M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Are there any display outputs on either card?

A: The Quadro K6000 has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Tesla M4 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only accelerator.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro K6000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors onto a 561 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Tesla M4 uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM206 chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Its die is significantly smaller at 228 mm², holding 2,940 million transistors for a density of 12.9 million transistors per square millimeter.

The K6000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler generation (Kx000), while the M4 belongs to the Tesla Maxwell generation (Mxx). The K6000's predecessor was Quadro Fermi, and its successor was Quadro Maxwell. The M4's predecessor was Tesla Kepler, and its successor was Tesla Pascal. The K6000 was released on 2013-07-22, while the M4 followed on 2015-11-09.

Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both rely on traditional shader-based rendering. The K6000 offers 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The M4 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The K6000's larger compute resource allocation directly explains its benchmark dominance.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between these two cards is substantial across nearly every measurable field. The K6000 has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 902 MHz, while the M4 runs at 872 MHz base and 1072 MHz boost. The M4 has higher clock speeds, but the K6000 compensates with far more execution units.

Memory is a major differentiator. The K6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5, three times the M4's 4 GB. The K6000's memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the M4's runs at 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective). The bus width difference is even more pronounced: 384 bits versus 128 bits. This yields 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth for the K6000, versus 88.00 GB/s for the M4.

Pixel and texture rates tell the same story. The K6000 achieves 54.12 GPixel/s and 216.5 GTexel/s. The M4 achieves 34.30 GPixel/s and 68.61 GTexel/s. In floating-point performance, the K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS in FP32, while the M4 delivers 2.195 TFLOPS. Neither card has FP16 capabilities listed.

Power and physical design are where the M4 takes control. The K6000 has a 225 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a 550 W suggested PSU. It measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The M4 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and only suggests a 250 W PSU. Its dimensions are not recorded in the database.

API support differs slightly. The M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, both newer than the K6000's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The K6000 has display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the M4 has none. The K6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD; the M4 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are one-sided. The Quadro K6000 scored 23,749 points, while the Tesla M4 scored 16,932 points. This gives the K6000 a 40.3% lead, a massive margin that reflects the underlying hardware disparity.

The K6000's score of 23,749 in OpenCL is its highest recorded benchmark, far above its Geekbench Vulkan score of 25,409 and Geekbench Metal score of 7,932. The M4 has only one recorded benchmark, the OpenCL score of 16,932. This means the K6000's OpenCL performance is 40.3% higher than the M4's, but the M4's score is still respectable given its 50 W power envelope.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the K6000 averages 19,030 points across all its tests, while the M4 averages 16,932 points. The K6000's average is pulled down by its low Metal score, but its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are strong. The M4 has no other tests to balance its single OpenCL result.

The K6000 sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M4 sits at the 60th percentile. This is a narrower gap than the raw OpenCL scores suggest, because the K6000's Metal score is comparatively weak. Still, the K6000 edges out the M4 in overall standing.

In terms of nearest rivals, the K6000 competes with modern midrange cards. Its average score of 19,030 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1%), and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089, -0.3%). It also slightly beats the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, 0.4% delta).

The M4's nearest rivals are older or lower-tier cards. Its 16,932 average is 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 7970M, 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT. It does beat the NVIDIA T400 4 GB by 0.8%. This places the M4 in a lower performance class than the K6000.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K6000 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 40.3% OpenCL lead over the M4 is the single most important benchmark result in this comparison. The K6000 also wins on memory capacity (12 GB versus 4 GB), memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s), and FP32 throughput (5.196 TFLOPS versus 2.195 TFLOPS). It has more than double the texture fill rate (216.5 GTexel/s versus 68.61 GTexel/s) and nearly 60% higher pixel rate (54.12 GPixel/s versus 34.30 GPixel/s).

The K6000 is the choice for compute-heavy workloads that can utilize its larger memory pool and wider memory bus. Its 12 GB frame buffer is suited for large datasets or high-resolution textures. Its 2,880 shading units and 240 TMUs provide substantial parallel processing capability. The K6000's 63rd percentile ranking places it above the M4's 60th percentile in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The Tesla M4 wins on efficiency and physical practicality. Its 50 W TDP is a quarter of the K6000's 225 W. It requires no external power connectors, while the K6000 needs two 6-pin connectors. The M4 is single-slot, while the K6000 is dual-slot. The M4's suggested PSU of 250 W is less than half the K6000's 550 W requirement. For dense server deployments or systems with limited power budgets, the M4 is the only viable option.

The M4 also has a newer architecture generation. Maxwell 2.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are more recent API versions than the Kepler-based K6000's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This could matter for software that relies on newer rendering features, even though neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The M4's higher clock speeds (872 MHz base, 1072 MHz boost) do not overcome its smaller execution resource pool. Its 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs are far fewer than the K6000's. However, the M4's transistor density of 12.9M / mm² is slightly higher than the K6000's 12.6M / mm², indicating a more modern design within the same 28 nm process.

For users who need display outputs, the K6000 is the only choice, as the M4 has none. The K6000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, making it usable in workstation setups that require direct monitor connection. The M4 is purely a compute accelerator, intended for headless server environments.

The K6000's launch MSRP of 5,265 USD reflects its professional workstation positioning. The M4 has no recorded launch MSRP, suggesting it was sold through OEM channels rather than retail. Neither card is in production, as both are marked end-of-life.

In summary, the K6000 wins every performance benchmark and offers more memory, bandwidth, and compute throughput. The M4 wins on power efficiency, physical size, and API modernity. The choice depends entirely on whether raw performance or operational efficiency is the priority.