NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data splits these two workstation cards into clearly different roles. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins both head-to-head tests, with a 6.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 33.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 43,262 places it at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA T1000 averages 36,289, sitting at the 80th percentile. The M6000 24 GB is the choice for users who need raw compute throughput and large memory capacity, as its 24 GB GDDR5 frame buffer dwarfs the T1000's 4 GB GDDR6 allocation. The T1000, however, is the choice for constrained environments: it draws only 50 W, needs no power connectors, fits in a single slot, and measures 156 mm in length versus the M6000 24 GB's 267 mm. The data suggests a user with a small chassis, limited power budget, or low-profile requirement should pick the T1000, while anyone prioritizing compute, memory, and API performance should pick the M6000 24 GB.

The nearest rivals provide context for each card's standing. The M6000 24 GB's average score of 43,262 sits within 0.1% of the Quadro M6000 (43,301) and within 0.9% of the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667), showing it remains competitive with much newer parts. The T1000's 36,289 average is within 0.7% of the GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530) and 2.2% ahead of the Quadro GV100 (35,520). These deltas show both cards are not outliers in their performance class; they are solidly mid-tier in their respective eras. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the M6000 24 GB is the performance leader, the T1000 is the efficiency and form-factor leader.

Where Each One Wins

The M6000 24 GB wins in every recorded benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 40,098 against the T1000's 37,704, a 6.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 46,425 versus 34,874, a 33.1% margin. This Vulkan separation is the single largest differentiator in the head-to-head data, suggesting the Maxwell architecture's implementation of the Vulkan API is significantly stronger in this workload. The M6000 24 GB also wins on memory capacity (24 GB vs 4 GB), memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s), and raw compute metrics: FP32 throughput of 6.844 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS, texture rate of 213.9 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 106.9 GPixel/s versus 44.64 GPixel/s.

The T1000 wins where physical constraints matter. It is a single-slot card at 156 mm length and 69 mm height, while the M6000 24 GB is dual-slot at 267 mm length and 111 mm height. The T1000 requires no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the M6000 24 GB needs one 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The T1000's 50 W TDP is one-fifth of the M6000 24 GB's 250 W. It also outputs four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors versus the M6000 24 GB's one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The T1000 has a higher memory clock at 10 Gbps effective versus 6.6 Gbps, and it supports FP16 at 5.000 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the M6000 24 GB lacks entirely. The T1000 also uses GDDR6 memory, a newer type than the M6000 24 GB's GDDR5.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The T1000 uses the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The density difference reflects the newer manufacturing process: the T1000 crams nearly twice the transistors per area despite having fewer total transistors.

The compute resources differ sharply. The M6000 24 GB has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those fields are absent from the data. The M6000 24 GB's FP32 output of 6.844 TFLOPS is 2.7 times the T1000's 2.500 TFLOPS. The T1000 counteracts this with FP16 support at 5.000 TFLOPS, which the M6000 24 GB does not list. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical on paper. The M6000 24 GB uses a 384-bit memory bus, while the T1000 uses a 128-bit bus, which explains the bandwidth gap: 317.4 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.

The architectural lineage differs too. The M6000 24 GB belongs to the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation, with its predecessor being Quadro Kepler and successor Quadro Pascal. The T1000 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, with predecessor Quadro Volta and successor Workstation Ampere. The release dates are five years apart: March 2016 for the M6000 24 GB and May 2021 for the T1000. Both are end-of-life products now.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 46,425 versus the T1000's 34,874, a 33.1% advantage.

Q: Does the T1000 have any compute advantage over the M6000 24 GB?

A: Yes, in FP16 workloads. The T1000 supports FP16 at 5.000 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the M6000 24 GB has no listed FP16 capability. In FP32, however, the M6000 24 GB leads with 6.844 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The T1000 has a 50 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The M6000 24 GB has a 250 W TDP, requires one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The T1000 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards similar in overall performance ranking?

A: Not exactly. The M6000 24 GB ranks at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 43,262, while the T1000 ranks at the 80th percentile with an average score of 36,289.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The M6000 24 GB is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and dual-slot. The T1000 is 156 mm long, 69 mm tall, and single-slot.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests both favor the M6000 24 GB. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M6000 24 GB scores 40,098 against the T1000's 37,704. The 6.3% delta is moderate, indicating the OpenCL workload does not fully separate the two architectures. The T1000's Turing architecture, despite fewer shading units, manages to stay within striking distance in this API. The M6000 24 GB's higher shading unit count (3,072 versus 896) and higher clock headroom (boost 1114 MHz versus 1395 MHz, though the T1000 boosts higher) likely drive the result. The raw FP32 throughput difference (6.844 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS) would suggest a larger gap, but OpenCL results show only a 6.3% difference, implying the workload is not purely compute-bound.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a different story. The M6000 24 GB scores 46,425, while the T1000 scores 34,874, a 33.1% margin. This is the largest delta in the head-to-head data. The M6000 24 GB's Vulkan score is also its higher of the two benchmark results, while the T1000's Vulkan score is its lower. This inversion suggests the Maxwell 2.0 architecture has a notably stronger Vulkan driver or hardware path in this test. The T1000's Vulkan score of 34,874 is 7.5% below its own OpenCL score of 37,704, whereas the M6000 24 GB's Vulkan score is 15.8% above its OpenCL score. The data indicates that users running Vulkan-based applications should strongly favor the M6000 24 GB.

Looking at the average benchmark scores for context, the M6000 24 GB averages 43,262 across both tests, while the T1000 averages 36,289. The M6000 24 GB's nearest rival, the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, scores 43,268 with a 0% delta, meaning the M6000 24 GB is essentially tied with that newer mobile part. The T1000's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M, scores 36,529 with a -0.7% delta, meaning the T1000 trails that part by a hair. These comparisons show the M6000 24 GB competes with recent hardware despite its 2016 release, while the T1000, released in 2021, sits at a lower absolute performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the T1000 uses the TU117 chip with Turing architecture on a 12 nm process. Transistor counts are 8,000 million versus 4,700 million, and die sizes are 601 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor density favors the T1000 at 23.5M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm². Base clocks are 988 MHz for the M6000 24 GB and 1065 MHz for the T1000, with boost clocks of 1114 MHz and 1395 MHz respectively. Memory clocks are 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the M6000 24 GB and 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for the T1000, showing the newer GDDR6 standard operates at a higher data rate despite a lower base clock.

Memory configuration differs substantially: 24 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 3,072 versus 896, TMUs are 192 versus 56, and ROPs are 96 versus 32. Pixel rate is 106.9 GPixel/s versus 44.64 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. FP32 is 6.844 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS, and FP16 is absent for the M6000 24 GB but 5.000 TFLOPS for the T1000. TDP is 250 W versus 50 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. Power connectors are one 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 600 W versus 250 W. Display outputs are one DVI plus four DisplayPort 1.2 versus four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are 267 mm by 111 mm versus 156 mm by 69 mm. Release dates are March 2016 versus May 2021, and the M6000 24 GB has a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD; the T1000 has no recorded launch MSRP. The generations differ (Quadro Maxwell Mx000 versus Quadro Turing Tx000), as do predecessors (Quadro Kepler versus Quadro Volta) and successors (Quadro Pascal versus Workstation Ampere).