NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench Vulkan, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB. The M6000 scores 46,425 points, while the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB scores 34,561 points. That translates to a 34.3% advantage for the older Maxwell-based card, a significant margin that places the M6000 firmly in a higher performance tier.

Context from the nearest rivals makes this gap even more meaningful. The M6000's average benchmark score of 43,262 puts it at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, scores 43,268, a delta of 0%. The gap to the RTX 4090 Mobile is only -0.9%, while the RTX 4070 SUPER trails by a mere 0.1%. In other words, the M6000's raw compute performance is on par with modern top-end consumer parts, despite its age.

The T1000, meanwhile, sits at the 79th percentile with an average score of 34,561. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7970, scores 34,541, a delta of 0.1%. The T1000 also edges out the NVIDIA TITAN V by 0.6% and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 by 1%. This places the T1000 in a much lower performance band, roughly 20% below the M6000 in raw benchmark terms.

It is important to note that the database only records a single shared benchmark test for these two cards. The Vulkan result is the sole direct comparison, and it shows a clear winner. There are no OpenCL or other workload results to cross-reference, so the analysis rests on this one data point, but it is a substantial and consistent one.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA's GPU design, and the architecture gap explains most of the performance delta. The Quadro M6000 24 GB is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM200 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors onto a 601 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry design from the high-end workstation era of 2016.

The T1000 8 GB, in contrast, uses the Turing architecture with the TU117 chip on a 12 nm process, also from TSMC. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The T1000 is a much smaller, more efficient chip, designed for lower power consumption and compact form factors. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 12 nm allows for nearly double the transistor density, which is a key architectural improvement.

The memory subsystems are also radically different. The M6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The T1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M6000's memory bandwidth is nearly double that of the T1000, which is critical for large data sets and high-resolution workloads.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M6000's pixel rate is 106.9 GPixel/s versus 44.64 GPixel/s on the T1000, and its texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 6.844 TFLOPS for the M6000 and 2.500 TFLOPS for the T1000. Notably, the T1000 does support FP16 at 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the M6000 lacks entirely.

Other architectural differences include the power envelope and physical design. The M6000 has a TDP of 250 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card. The T1000 has a TDP of just 50 W, draws power entirely from the PCIe slot, and is a single-slot card. The M6000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the T1000 is 156 mm long and 69 mm tall. The M6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the T1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the database's recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins the only shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, with a score of 46,425 versus 34,561 for the T1000 8 GB, a 34.3% advantage.

Q: How does the M6000 compare to modern GPUs in the database?

A: The M6000's average benchmark score of 43,262 places it at the 83rd percentile. It is within 0.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile and within 0.1% of the RTX 4070 SUPER and RTX 5050 Mobile.

Q: What is the main architectural advantage of the T1000?

A: The T1000 uses a 12 nm Turing chip with a transistor density of 23.5M / mm², versus 13.3M / mm² for the 28 nm Maxwell M6000. It also supports FP16 compute at 5.000 TFLOPS, which the M6000 does not.

Q: Does the T1000 have any advantage in memory technology?

A: Yes, the T1000 uses GDDR6 memory running at 10 Gbps effective, while the M6000 uses GDDR5 at 6.6 Gbps effective. However, the M6000's 384-bit bus gives it 317.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 160.0 GB/s for the T1000.

Q: Which card is more practical for a small form factor build?

A: The T1000 is a single-slot, 156 mm card with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors. The M6000 is a dual-slot, 267 mm card with a 250 W TDP and requires a 1x 8-pin connector.

Q: What are the production statuses of these cards?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The M6000 was released in March 2016, while the T1000 was released in May 2021.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the Quadro M6000 24 GB is the far more powerful card in raw compute terms. Its 34.3% lead in Vulkan benchmarks, combined with its 83rd percentile standing, makes it the obvious choice for workloads that demand raw throughput, large memory capacity, and high bandwidth. If the task is rendering, simulation, or any GPU-accelerated compute that can use 24 GB of VRAM, the M6000 is the superior tool.

The T1000 8 GB, while significantly slower, offers a different set of strengths. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it ideal for dense environments, low-power systems, or as a secondary compute card. It is not a competitor to the M6000 in performance, but it is a practical solution for situations where space and power are the primary constraints.

The M6000 also holds a notable advantage in memory bandwidth, with 317.4 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. This is a critical factor for large data sets, 4K textures, and multi-display setups. The T1000's GDDR6 memory is faster per-pin, but the narrow 128-bit bus caps its overall throughput.

Pick the M6000 if you need maximum compute performance and can accommodate a large, power-hungry card. Pick the T1000 if you need a low-profile, energy-efficient card that still supports modern APIs and fits almost anywhere.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category, reflecting their different design goals and generations.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB | NVIDIA T1000 8 GB |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |

| Chip | GM200 | TU117 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 4,700 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 23.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 1065 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 896 |

| TMUs | 192 | 56 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 44.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 78.12 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.844 TFLOPS | 2.500 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Length | 267 mm | 156 mm |

| Height | 111 mm | 69 mm |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | March 2016 | May 2021 |

Where Each One Wins

The M6000 wins in every direct performance metric recorded. It has higher raw FP32 throughput (6.844 TFLOPS vs. 2.500 TFLOPS), higher pixel and texture fill rates, and more than double the memory bandwidth. It is the clear winner for GPU-bound compute tasks, high-resolution texture streaming, and any workload that can utilize its 24 GB of VRAM. Its 83rd percentile ranking places it among modern high-end parts, making it a viable option even for current-generation software.

The T1000 wins in efficiency and physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP is one-fifth of the M6000's 250 W, and it requires no external power connector. It is a single-slot, 156 mm card, which is dramatically smaller than the M6000's dual-slot, 267 mm design. The T1000 also supports FP16 compute at 5.000 TFLOPS, which the M6000 does not, making it potentially useful for AI inference workloads that rely on half-precision math. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support newer display standards than the M6000's DisplayPort 1.2.

In terms of use cases, the M6000 is suited for static workstations where power and space are not limiting factors. It is a heavyweight for rendering farms, simulation nodes, or any system that needs maximum compute density in a single card. The T1000 is suited for compact workstations, HTPCs, or as a low-power compute accelerator in a server chassis where heat and energy are concerns. It is also a better fit for multi-GPU configurations where the M6000's power draw and size would be prohibitive.

The database records one win for the M6000 and zero for the T1000 in head-to-head tests. The verdict is not ambiguous: the M6000 is the performance king, while the T1000 is the efficiency champion. Choose accordingly based on your priorities.