NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA T550 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the two benchmark tests included in the database. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 takes both head-to-head matchups, with its most dominant result coming in the Geekbench Vulkan test. In that workload, the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913 points against the T550 Mobile’s 30,801 points, a delta of 52.3%. That is not a marginal gap; it represents a fundamental difference in how each card handles a modern graphics API. The Vulkan result suggests the M6000 is in a different performance class when the workload scales to the full width of the GPU.

The OpenCL result is closer but still favors the M6000. The Quadro M6000 records 39,688 points, while the T550 Mobile posts 35,521 points. That works out to an 11.7% advantage for the M6000. OpenCL tends to stress compute throughput in a way that can favor newer architectures, so the smaller gap here is worth noting. The T550 Mobile’s Turing design closes some of the distance in this test, but it does not overcome the M6000’s raw resources.

Looking at the average benchmark score across all recorded tests, the M6000 sits at 43,301 points, which places it in the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The T550 Mobile averages 33,161 points and sits in the 77th percentile. The percentile gap, about seven points, reflects a meaningful difference in overall standing. The M6000’s nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 points (0.1% behind), the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 points (0.1% behind), and the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER at 43,223 points (0.2% behind). The T550 Mobile’s nearest rivals are the GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile at 33,170 points (0% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro 570 at 33,207 points (0.1% behind), and the Nvidia P104-100 at 32,982 points (0.5% ahead of the T550). The M6000 even trades blows with the RTX 4090 Mobile, which sits only 0.8% ahead in average score. That context matters: the M6000 is competing near the top of the database, while the T550 Mobile sits in the mid-range.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and target completely different physical environments. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, which gives a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The T550 Mobile uses the TU117 chip on Turing architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 12 nm process. Its die measures 200 mm² and holds 4,700 million transistors, for a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The Turing chip is significantly more compact and denser, but it has far fewer resources to work with.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The M6000 comes with 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The T550 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. That bandwidth gap is enormous and shows up in any memory-heavy workload. The M6000’s memory clock runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, while the T550’s memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The newer GDDR6 standard allows the T550 to reach higher effective data rates per pin, but the narrow bus cannot compensate for the M6000’s wider path.

Compute resources also differ by a wide margin. The M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines. The T550 Mobile has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate for the M6000 is 106.9 GPixel/s, versus 53.28 GPixel/s for the T550. Texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 106.6 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 6.844 TFLOPS for the M6000, while the T550 manages 3.410 TFLOPS. The T550 does have one advantage in compute: it supports FP16 at 6.820 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the M6000 does not list. That could matter for workloads that use mixed precision, but for standard FP32 tasks the M6000 is roughly double the T550’s throughput.

Clock speeds favor the T550 in absolute terms. The T550’s base clock is 1065 MHz and its boost clock reaches 1665 MHz, while the M6000’s base is 988 MHz and boost is 1114 MHz. The T550 also has a much lower power envelope: 23 W versus 250 W. That makes the T550 an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors, while the M6000 is a dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested power supply. The M6000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the T550 has no listed physical dimensions because it is designed for portable devices.

Where Each One Wins

The M6000 wins every recorded benchmark, but the nature of those wins points to where each card belongs. In Vulkan, the M6000’s 52.3% lead is decisive. Vulkan workloads often scale with shading units and memory bandwidth, and the M6000 has three times the shading units and over three times the bandwidth. The T550’s newer architecture does not compensate for that resource deficit. If a workload is heavy on geometry, rasterization, or large buffer transfers, the M6000 is the clear choice.

The OpenCL test is closer at 11.7%. OpenCL kernels can be more sensitive to clock speed and per-clock efficiency, and the T550’s higher boost clock (1665 MHz versus 1114 MHz) helps it stay competitive despite having fewer cores. The T550 also supports FP16 at 6.820 TFLOPS, which may give it an edge in compute tasks that use half precision. For FP32-heavy OpenCL workloads, the M6000 still wins, but the margin is not overwhelming.

The T550’s real advantage is not in raw score but in deployment. Its 23 W power draw, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for compact notebooks and portable workstations. The M6000 requires a full desktop chassis with substantial power delivery and cooling. The T550’s memory configuration, 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, is modest but appropriate for a mobile part. The M6000’s 12 GB GDDR5 with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth is for desktop workstations where memory capacity and bandwidth are critical.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M6000 is the faster card by a large margin, especially in Vulkan. Anyone choosing between these two for a desktop workstation should take the M6000. Its average score of 43,301 places it near the RTX 4090 Mobile, and it beats the T550 Mobile by roughly 30% overall. The M6000’s memory bandwidth alone, 317.4 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, makes it the only option for large datasets or high-resolution textures.

The T550 Mobile is not a bad card for its class. It sits in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rival is the GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile at essentially identical scores. For a mobile workstation that must run OpenCL or Vulkan workloads without a dedicated power supply, the T550 is a reasonable choice. Its FP16 support gives it a feature the M6000 lacks, and its 12 nm Turing architecture is more modern than Maxwell 2.0. But the T550 cannot match the M6000 in any recorded metric, and it never will.

Pick the M6000 if you need maximum performance, have a desktop chassis, and can supply 250 W and a 600 W PSU. Pick the T550 Mobile if you need a low-power mobile GPU with modern FP16 capability and are willing to accept roughly half the FP32 throughput and a third of the memory bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M6000 averages 43,301 points, while the T550 Mobile averages 33,161 points.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The M6000 scores 46,913 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 30,801 for the T550 Mobile, a 52.3% advantage.

Q: Does the T550 Mobile have any compute advantage?

A: Yes, it supports FP16 at 6.820 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The M6000 does not list FP16 support in the database.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M6000 delivers 317.4 GB/s from 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The T550 Mobile delivers 96.00 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The T550 Mobile draws 23 W and requires no power connectors, while the M6000 draws 250 W and needs one 8-pin connector plus a 600 W suggested power supply.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The M6000 sits within 0.2% of the RTX 5050 Mobile and RTX 4070 SUPER, and within 0.8% of the RTX 4090 Mobile. The T550 Mobile is within 0.5% of the P104-100 and 1% of the T600 Mobile, and matches the RTX 3050 Mobile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | NVIDIA T550 Mobile |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |

| 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 | 1665 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 192 | 64 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 106.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.844 TFLOPS | 3.410 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 6.820 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 23 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | Not listed |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | Not listed |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Ampere-MW |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | Not listed |