NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB are near-identical twins separated by memory capacity and a year of release. Benchmark data shows a statistical dead heat in aggregate performance, with the 12 GB model edging ahead in one test and the 24 GB model in another, but the real differentiator is the doubling of VRAM, which dictates which workloads each card is suited for.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The average benchmark scores for both cards are virtually indistinguishable. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 posts an average score of 43301, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB trails by a negligible 0.1%, scoring 43262. This places both cards within the same performance tier, surrounded by modern consumer GPUs; the nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, scores 43268, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER scores 43223 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 43667.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 24 GB model takes the win with a score of 40098, compared to 39688 for the standard M6000. That is a 1% advantage for the larger-memory card. The margin is small, but it is consistent with the idea that the extra memory allows for slightly better memory allocation efficiency in compute workloads that scale with buffer sizes.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. Here, the standard Quadro M6000 scores 46913, which is 1.1% higher than the 46425 achieved by the 24 GB variant. Neither card is designed for gaming, but Vulkan compute performance can be sensitive to driver scheduling and memory partitioning, and the data shows the 12 GB card holding a slight edge in this specific API.

Across the two head-to-head tests, each card claims exactly one win. The average of the two benchmarks — 43301 for the 12 GB card versus 43262 for the 24 GB card — confirms that raw compute throughput is essentially identical. The differences of 1% and 1.1% are within run-to-run variance for GPUs of this era, meaning that for most tasks, the choice between them will not come down to speed.

Percentile rankings reinforce this picture. The 12 GB M6000 sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the 24 GB model sits at the 83rd percentile. That one-point gap is the entire measurable performance difference between the two cards in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GM200 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 8,000 million, and the die size is the same 601 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². They belong to the same Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation and share the same predecessor and successor lineage: Quadro Kepler before them and Quadro Pascal after.

Clock speeds are also identical. Both run at a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz, with memory clocked at 1653 MHz and an effective data rate of 6.6 Gbps. The memory bus is 384-bit in both cases, and memory bandwidth is exactly the same at 317.4 GB/s. The shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units are all matched: 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs.

The only architectural difference is memory capacity. The standard M6000 carries 12 GB of GDDR5, while the 24 GB model doubles that to 24 GB of the same GDDR5 type. Critically, this capacity increase does not come with any bandwidth advantage; the 384-bit bus and 317.4 GB/s throughput are unchanged. This means the 24 GB card does not move data any faster, but it can hold twice as much of it on-chip before spilling to system memory.

Feature sets align perfectly. Both cards offer the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is expected for a Maxwell-generation product. Pixel rate and texture rate are identical at 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s, respectively, and FP32 compute is listed at 6.844 TFLOPS for both. There is no FP16 rating listed for either card.

Physical specifications are also uniform. Both are dual-slot cards, 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 600 W power supply. The thermal design power is 250 W for each. Display outputs are the same: one DVI port and four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, with a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The 12 GB Quadro M6000 wins in the Vulkan benchmark, scoring 46913 against the 24 GB model’s 46425. For workloads that rely on Vulkan compute — which can include certain rendering pipelines and scientific visualization tools — the standard card shows a 1.1% advantage. This is a narrow win, but it is the only head-to-head test where the 12 GB card comes out ahead.

The 24 GB Quadro M6000 wins the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 40098 versus 39688, a 1% margin. OpenCL is the more common compute interface for professional applications like CAD, medical imaging, and data analysis. The larger memory pool gives the 24 GB card a slight edge in this test, likely because it can hold larger working sets without hitting memory limits.

The 24 GB model also wins on raw capacity. With twice the VRAM, it is the only card of the two that can handle datasets that exceed 12 GB. In machine learning inference, large 3D texture stacks, or multi-display high-resolution visualization, the extra memory is the deciding factor, even if the compute throughput is identical.

The 12 GB card wins on release timing. It was released on 2015-03-20, nearly a year before the 24 GB model’s 2016-03-04 launch. For early adopters of the Maxwell Quadro generation, the 12 GB card was the only option at that time. Both cards are now marked as end-of-life in production status.

Neither card holds a meaningful advantage in power efficiency or physical design, as they share the same 250 W TDP, dual-slot cooler, and dimensions. The choice between them is purely about memory capacity versus a slight Vulkan performance edge.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has an average score of 43301, which is 0.1% higher than the 43262 average of the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and does it affect bandwidth?

A: The standard M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the 24 GB model has 24 GB of GDDR5. Both have the same 384-bit bus and identical 317.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two cards?

A: No. Both cards run at a 988 MHz base clock and a 1114 MHz boost clock, with memory at 1653 MHz and 6.6 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card performs better in OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The 24 GB model wins in OpenCL with a score of 40098, which is 1% higher than the 39688 score of the 12 GB model.

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan, and by how much?

A: The 12 GB model wins in Vulkan with a score of 46913, which is 1.1% higher than the 46425 score of the 24 GB model.

Q: Do the cards have the same compute capabilities?

A: Yes. Both have 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and an FP32 rating of 6.844 TFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data says these are the same GPU with a different memory allocation. The 12 GB Quadro M6000 and the 24 GB Quadro M6000 share every architectural specification that affects raw compute speed: identical clocks, identical shader counts, identical memory bandwidth, and identical FP32 throughput. The average benchmark scores differ by just 0.1%, and the head-to-head results are split — one win each, with margins of 1% and 1.1%.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 if your priority is Vulkan performance. The 46913 Vulkan score is the highest of the two, and the 84th percentile ranking versus the 83rd for the 24 GB card means it sits marginally higher in the overall GPU hierarchy. It is also the card for anyone who was working with Maxwell Quadro hardware before 2016, as it came to market nearly a year earlier.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB if your workloads exceed 12 GB of memory. The OpenCL win — 40098 versus 39688 — suggests that compute tasks using that API benefit slightly from the larger frame buffer. More importantly, the 24 GB capacity is the only meaningful difference between these cards, and it is a decisive one for datasets that do not fit in 12 GB. The 24 GB model also carries a listed launch MSRP of 4,999 USD.

For anyone choosing between the two today, the benchmark data offers no reason to prefer one for speed. Both cards are end-of-life products from the Maxwell era, and both are outperformed in raw scores by modern rivals like the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, which scores 43223, and the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile, which scores 43667. The decision is purely a memory capacity play: if 12 GB suffices, save the money and take the slightly higher Vulkan score; if memory is the constraint, the 24 GB model is the only one that can do the job.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB |

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

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 24 GB |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2016-03-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 4,999 USD |

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

| Avg Benchmark Score | 43301 | 43262 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 39688 | 40098 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 46913 | 46425 |

| Percentile (vs all GPUs) | 84 | 83 |

All other specifications are identical: GM200 chip, Maxwell 2.0 architecture, 28 nm process, 8,000 million transistors, 601 mm² die size, 988 MHz base clock, 1114 MHz boost clock, 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 250 W TDP, and the same dual-slot, 267 mm physical design.