NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Tesla P4 does not win a single benchmark in the database. That gives the Quadro M6000 a 2-0 win record in direct comparisons.

The wins are not marginal. In OpenCL, the Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 against the Tesla P4's 34,947, a 13.6% advantage. In Vulkan, the gap widens to 16.4%, with scores of 46,913 versus 40,309. The Quadro M6000 is ahead in both compute APIs, and the Vulkan lead is larger than the OpenCL lead, suggesting the Maxwell architecture scales better in the Vulkan workload recorded here.

Positioning against all GPUs reinforces the split. The Quadro M6000 sits at the 84th percentile among all GPUs, while the Tesla P4 sits at the 81st. The average benchmark score for the Quadro M6000 is 43,301, compared with 37,628 for the Tesla P4. That is a gap of roughly 5,673 points, or about 15% relative to the Tesla P4's average. The percentile difference is only three points, but the raw score gap is substantial.

Look at the nearest rivals for context. The Quadro M6000's average score of 43,301 places it within 0.1% of the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262), and within 0.2% of the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223). It trails the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667) by 0.8%. The Tesla P4's average of 37,628 sits within 0.1% of the GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648), 0.3% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507), and 1.3% ahead of the Radeon PRO W6400 (37,157). It trails the GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135) by 1.3%. So the Quadro M6000 competes in a higher performance tier, while the Tesla P4 sits one tier below.

The use case split is straightforward from the data: the Quadro M6000 is the stronger compute performer in both recorded APIs. The Tesla P4 offers no benchmark win to claim a different workload advantage. However, the Tesla P4's physical profile differs greatly: single-slot, no power connectors, 75 W TDP, and no display outputs. That points to a deployment role rather than a performance role. The data does not record any test where the Tesla P4 wins, so any use-case advantage must come from its form factor and power envelope, not from measured performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different process nodes. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla P4 uses the GP104 chip on Pascal, built on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The node shrink is significant: 28 nm to 16 nm.

Transistor counts are close but not equal. The GM200 packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.3 million per mm². The GP104 packs 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, giving a density of 22.9 million per mm². The Tesla P4's die is roughly half the area but holds 90% of the transistor count, a direct result of the denser 16 nm process.

Compute resources differ. The Quadro M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The Tesla P4 has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro M6000 leads in every unit count. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely purely on traditional shader compute.

Clock behavior is interesting. The Quadro M6000 has a higher base clock at 988 MHz versus 886 MHz, but both share the same boost clock at 1114 MHz. That means the Tesla P4 boosts to the same frequency as the Quadro M6000, but its lower unit counts still hold it back in raw throughput. The Quadro M6000's memory clock is also higher: 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, versus 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective on the Tesla P4.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Quadro M6000 carries 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla P4 carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 192.3 GB/s. That is a 65% bandwidth advantage for the Quadro M6000, a major factor in compute workloads.

FP32 throughput follows the unit counts. The Quadro M6000 delivers 6.844 TFLOPS, while the Tesla P4 delivers 5.704 TFLOPS. The Tesla P4 has a recorded FP16 figure of 89.12 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, which is negligible and effectively a token FP16 capability. The Quadro M6000 has no FP16 figure recorded, so the database treats its FP16 as unsupported or unmeasured.

Power and physical design differ completely. The Quadro M6000 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 600 W power supply. It measures 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. The Tesla P4 is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W power supply. It measures 168 mm long. The Tesla P4 has no display outputs, while the Quadro M6000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Both cards support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro M6000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation (Mx000) and was released in March 2015. The Tesla P4 belongs to the Tesla Pascal generation (Pxx) and was released in September 2016. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro M6000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and successor is Quadro Pascal; the Tesla P4's predecessor is Tesla Maxwell and successor is Tesla Volta.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Quadro M6000 at 39,688 against the Tesla P4 at 34,947. The delta is 13.6% in favor of the Quadro M6000. This is the smaller of the two gaps. The OpenCL workload appears to reward the Quadro M6000's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth, but the Tesla P4's Pascal architecture closes some of the distance.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a larger gap. The Quadro M6000 scores 46,913, while the Tesla P4 scores 40,309. The delta is 16.4%. Vulkan's lower-level API overhead may favor the Maxwell architecture's raw throughput, or the Quadro M6000's bandwidth advantage matters more in this workload. Either way, the data records a clear and consistent lead for the Quadro M6000 in both APIs.

Contextualize these scores with the nearest rivals. The Quadro M6000's Vulkan score of 46,913 is well above its own average of 43,301, so Vulkan is a strong workload for this card. Its OpenCL score of 39,688 sits below its average. The Tesla P4's Vulkan score of 40,309 is above its average of 37,628, while its OpenCL score of 34,947 sits below. Both cards perform relatively better in Vulkan than in OpenCL, but the Quadro M6000's Vulkan advantage over the Tesla P4 is larger than its OpenCL advantage.

The average benchmark score gap tells the same story. The Quadro M6000 averages 43,301, which is 15.1% above the Tesla P4's 37,628. That average gap sits between the two individual test gaps, which makes sense: the OpenCL gap is 13.6%, the Vulkan gap is 16.4%, and the average of the two tests lands near 15%.

The nearest-rival data adds perspective. The Quadro M6000 is only 0.1% behind the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile and 0.2% behind the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER. The Tesla P4 is essentially tied with the GeForce RTX 4070 at -0.1% and 0.3% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 56. So the Quadro M6000's performance class is roughly a desktop GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, while the Tesla P4's class is roughly a desktop GeForce RTX 4070. The gap between those reference points matches the gap between the two cards in this comparison.

No benchmark in the database records a Tesla P4 win. The wins column shows 2 for the Quadro M6000 and 0 for the Tesla P4. That is the complete head-to-head record.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43,301, while the Tesla P4 averages 37,628. The Quadro M6000 is about 15% higher.

Q: Does the Tesla P4 win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Quadro M6000 wins both. The win count is 2-0.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913 versus 40,309 for the Tesla P4, a 16.4% advantage.

Q: Are these cards similar in power consumption?

A: No. The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP, requires one 8-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card. The Tesla P4 has a 75 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and is a single-slot card.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla P4 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Where does each card rank among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M6000 is at the 84th percentile, while the Tesla P4 is at the 81st percentile.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | NVIDIA Tesla P4 |

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

| Chip | GM200 | GP104 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | Tesla Pascal (Pxx) |

| Process node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 601 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor density | 13.3M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 988 MHz | 886 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory bus width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3072 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 192 | 160 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 71.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 178.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.844 TFLOPS | 5.704 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 89.12 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 250 W | 75 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2015-03-20 | 2016-09-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | Tesla Maxwell |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Tesla Volta |

Shared specifications: both use GDDR5 memory, PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, both are manufactured by TSMC, both are end-of-life, and neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The boost clock is identical at 1114 MHz for both cards.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro M6000 for anyone who needs raw compute performance. It wins both recorded benchmarks, holds a 15% average score advantage, and ranks three percentile points higher among all GPUs. Its 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32, 317.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 12 GB of VRAM make it the stronger choice for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads in the database.

The Tesla P4 has no benchmark win to its name, but its profile tells a different story. It draws 75 W, needs no power connectors, fits in a single slot, and measures only 168 mm. It has no display outputs, so it is built for headless compute or inference deployments where power and space matter more than peak throughput. The 16 nm Pascal process gives it a much denser transistor layout, 22.9M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm², and a smaller die at 314 mm² versus 601 mm².

The practical guidance from the data: choose the Quadro M6000 when the workload is compute-bound and the system can accommodate a 250 W dual-slot card with a 600 W suggested power supply. Choose the Tesla P4 when the deployment requires a low-power, single-slot, connector-free card and the performance gap is acceptable. The Quadro M6000 is the faster card by every recorded measure; the Tesla P4 is the more efficient and physically flexible card. Neither is a general-purpose display card in the same way, since the Tesla P4 has no outputs, but the Quadro M6000 retains display connectivity with DVI and DisplayPort.

The nearest-rival data confirms the tier separation. The Quadro M6000 trades blows with the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER and RTX 5050 Mobile, while the Tesla P4 sits alongside the GeForce RTX 4070 and Radeon RX Vega 56. That is a consistent one-tier gap. For buyers deciding between these two specific cards, the recorded benchmarks leave no ambiguity: the Quadro M6000 wins on performance, and the Tesla P4 wins on power and physical footprint.