NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests against the Quadro M4000M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K6000 scores 23,749 versus 19,989 for the M4000M, a 15.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the K6000 scores 25,409 versus 20,971, a 17.5% lead. If your workload relies on raw compute throughput in these APIs, the K6000 is the stronger card.

However, the M4000M is not without its own appeal. It consumes 100 W compared to the K6000's 225 W, fits in an MXM Module slot rather than a dual-slot PCIe card, and requires no power connectors. The K6000 needs 2x 6-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. For a mobile workstation or a compact system where power and space are tight, the M4000M is the practical choice despite losing every benchmark.

Choose the K6000 if you need maximum compute performance, have the power budget, and are building in a desktop chassis. Choose the M4000M if you are constrained by slot type, power draw, or physical size, and can accept lower benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and generations. The M4000M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, belonging to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The K6000 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler architecture, from the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Both are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon differs substantially.

The K6000 packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the M4000M has 5,200 million transistors on a smaller 398 mm² die. Interestingly, the M4000M has a higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm² for the K6000. The K6000 is the larger, more complex chip.

Feature support also diverges. The M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. In Vulkan, the M4000M supports version 1.4, whereas the K6000 is limited to 1.2.175. The M4000M is newer (release date 2015-08-17 vs 2013-07-22 for the K6000) and has a more modern API feature set, even though it loses in raw compute benchmarks.

The K6000 also has a much higher launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, reflecting its positioning as a top-tier desktop workstation card at release. The M4000M has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers two tests, and the K6000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K6000 scores 23,749 against the M4000M's 19,989. That is a 15.8% gap in favor of the K6000. In Geekbench Vulkan, the K6000 scores 25,409 against 20,971, a 17.5% lead. The M4000M does not win any of the two head-to-head tests; the win count is 0 for the M4000M and 2 for the K6000.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests, the M4000M actually has a higher average at 20,480 compared to the K6000's 19,030. This is because the K6000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 7,932, which drags its average down. The M4000M has no Metal benchmark listed. In the two tests where both cards are measured, the K6000 is consistently ahead.

The M4000M's nearest rivals by average score include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20,534, delta -0.3%), Intel Arc B570 (20,556, -0.4%), Intel Arc A750 (20,582, -0.5%), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20,662, -0.9%). The K6000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1%), NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089, -0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, 0.4%). The percentile rankings are close: the M4000M sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the K6000 is at the 63rd.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The M4000M has a base clock of 975 MHz and boost of 1013 MHz, while the K6000 clocks lower at 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. Memory speed also differs: the M4000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the K6000 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is a major differentiator. The M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The K6000 offers three times the memory capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

Compute resources also favor the K6000. The M4000M has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The K6000 has more than double the shading units and triple the texture units, but fewer ROPs. Pixel rates are similar: the M4000M achieves 64.83 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s for the K6000. Texture rate heavily favors the K6000 at 216.5 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32 performance also favors the K6000 at 5.196 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS for the M4000M.

Power and physical design differ significantly. The M4000M has a 100 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot, and needs no power connectors. The K6000 has a 225 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W. The K6000 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. Display outputs differ: the M4000M is "Portable Device Dependent," while the K6000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The M4000M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and successor is the Quadro Pascal-M; the K6000's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro K6000 wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 23,749 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 19,989 for the M4000M (15.8% ahead), and 25,409 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 20,971 (17.5% ahead).

Q: Does the M4000M have any advantage in API support?

A: Yes. The M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000M has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is the M4000M more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The M4000M has a 100 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the K6000 has a 225 W TDP and needs 2x 6-pin connectors plus a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The M4000M has a higher average benchmark score of 20,480 versus 19,030 for the K6000. However, this includes the K6000's Geekbench Metal score of 7,932, which is not measured for the M4000M.

Q: Which card is better for a desktop workstation?

A: Based on compute performance, the K6000 is stronger, with double the FP32 throughput (5.196 TFLOPS vs 2.593 TFLOPS) and higher texture rate (216.5 GTexel/s vs 81.04 GTexel/s). But it requires a dual-slot chassis, 225 W power, and external power connectors.

Where Each One Wins

The K6000 wins in every measured compute benchmark. Its FP32 performance of 5.196 TFLOPS is exactly double the M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS. Texture rate is nearly three times higher at 216.5 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 288.4 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s, and it offers 12 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB. The K6000 also has more shading units (2,880 vs 1,280) and TMUs (240 vs 80). For workloads that stress raw compute, texture throughput, or large memory footprints, the K6000 is the clear winner. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,749 and Vulkan score of 25,409 both exceed the M4000M's corresponding scores by roughly 16-18%.

The M4000M wins in efficiency and integration. It consumes 100 W versus 225 W, meaning less than half the power draw. It fits in an MXM Module slot, making it suitable for laptops or compact systems, while the K6000 is a dual-slot desktop card. The M4000M requires no power connectors, whereas the K6000 needs 2x 6-pin connectors and a 550 W PSU. The M4000M has a higher pixel rate at 64.83 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s, which could matter for certain rasterization-bound tasks. It also has more ROPs (64 vs 48). The M4000M's newer architecture supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, which may be relevant for newer applications that use these APIs. Its average benchmark score of 20,480 is higher than the K6000's 19,030, though this is influenced by the K6000's low Metal score. In terms of percentile ranking, the M4000M sits at the 65th percentile versus the 63rd for the K6000, indicating slightly better overall standing among all GPUs.