NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database pits the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB against the NVIDIA TITAN V in two recorded cross-benchmark runs. The TITAN V takes both comparisons, and the margins are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 40,098 points while the TITAN V reaches 157,265 points, a 74.5% advantage. The Vulkan test tells the same story: 46,425 for the Quadro versus 152,117 for the TITAN V, a 69.5% gap. These are not narrow wins; the TITAN V roughly triples the Quadro's throughput in both API workloads.

What makes the margin so large? The two cards sit on opposite ends of the product spectrum. The Quadro M6000 24 GB is a Maxwell-generation professional card, built around the GM200 chip, while the TITAN V is a Volta-architecture GeForce 10-series part based on GV100. The benchmark data shows the TITAN V is not merely faster, it is in a different performance class. In OpenCL compute, a delta of -74.5% means the Quadro M6000 delivers only about a quarter of the TITAN V's score. For Vulkan, the difference is -69.5%, again a roughly 3.3x advantage for the TITAN V. The recorded data does not include a single test where the Quadro comes out ahead.

# Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the TITAN V wins both recorded benchmark comparisons. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has zero wins in the database. Therefore, a use-case split based on these two tests alone strongly favors the TITAN V. The only context in which the Quadro's profile could be preferred is not measurable from compute benchmarks, but rather from its feature set: it is a designated workstation card with a dual-slot cooler, a single 8-pin power input, and an end-of-life production status. The TITAN V, by contrast, is listed as a GeForce 10-series product with a 6+8 pin power requirement. If the workload is purely the two cross-benchmark tests, the data says the TITAN V wins every time.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge at nearly every architectural layer. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, produced on a 28 nm TSMC process. It packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, for a density of 13.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The TITAN V uses the GV100 chip, a Volta architecture part built on TSMC's 12 nm node. The transistor count jumps to 21,100 million across an 815 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.9 million per square millimeter, nearly double the Quadro.

The memory subsystems are equally different. The Quadro ships with 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, producing 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN V uses 12 GB of HBM2 over a 3072-bit bus, good for 651.3 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth in the Quadro. The TITAN V also carries 640 Tensor Cores dedicated to AI/ML work, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. The shading and geometry throughput numbers show the same pattern: 5,120 shading units versus 3,072, 320 texture mapping units versus 192, 96 ROPs versus 96 ROPs (a tie), and a pixel rate of 139.7 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s.

Shader and clock behavior reinforce the gap. The Quadro runs at a base of 988 MHz with a 1114 MHz boost and a memory clock of 1653 MHz. The TITAN V boosts higher: a base of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1455 MHz, with memory at 848 MHz. In raw FP32 compute, the TITAN V is rated at 14.90 TFLOPS, versus the Quadro's the 6.844 TFLOPS. The TITAN also has a FP16 rate of 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory, the Quadro M6000 or the TITAN V?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5, twice the TITAN V's 12 GB of HBM2. However, the TITAN V has a wider memory bus (3072-bit versus 384-bit) and higher bandwidth (651.3 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s).

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M6000 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the TITAN V is a 12 nm TSMC part. The TITAN V also packs more transistors into the same package: 21,100 million to 8,000 million.

Q: Which supports more modern APIs?

A: The TITAN V supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro M6000 lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 as well, so they are API equivalents in the database.

Q: Are the power requirements the same?

A: No. The Quadro M6000 asks for a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W power supply unit. The TITAN V requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and the database also lists a 600 W PSU.

Q: How do their board dimensions compare?

A: The Quadro M6000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. The TITAN V is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall. Both are dual-slot boards. The width of the Quadro is not recorded, while the TITAN V is 40 mm.

The Verdict

Strictly going by the database's benchmark and specification records, the NVIDIA TITAN V is the clear winner. It outperforms the Quadro M6000 24 GB in both head-to-head tests by a margin of roughly 3x. It has a newer architecture (Volta vs Maxwell), a smaller process node (12 nm vs 28 nm), more transistors, higher FP32 compute, double the texture fillrate, and a unique tensor core feature that the Quadro does not have. The Quadro M6000 24 GB does have the advantage of double the memory capacity (24 GB vs 12 GB), which might matter for very large models or datasets. But for the measured benchmark performance, the TITAN V is the card to choose. The Quadro's only recorded wins are zero; the TITAN V wins two.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB | NVIDIA TITAN V |

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

| Chip | GM200 | GV100 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Volta |

| Process | 28 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz | 848 MHz |

| Memory | 24 GB GDDR5 | 12 GB HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 384-bit | 3072-bit |

| Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 651.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 192 | 320 |

| ROPs | 96 | 96 |

| Tensor Cores | - | 640 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 139.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 465.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 6.844 TFLOPS | 14.90 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | - | 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual | Dual |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI-4x DP 1.2 | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DP 1.4a |

| APIs | DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 | DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm, 10.5 inches | 267 mm, 10.5 inches |

| Height | 111 mm, 4.4 inches | 112 mm, 4.4 inches |

| Width | - | 40 mm, 1.6 inches |

| Release Date | 2016-03-04 | 2017-12-06 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | GeForce 20 |