NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The dataset splits cleanly along workload lines. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and NVIDIA TITAN V target different users, and the benchmark records reflect that separation.

The Quadro M6000 holds no head-to-head wins in the recorded tests. Its two available benchmark entries, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, both fall behind the TITAN V by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 39,688 against 157,265 for the TITAN V, a deficit of 74.8%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro posts 46,913 versus 152,117, a 69.2% gap. These are not close contests; the TITAN V more than triples the Quadro in OpenCL and more than doubles it in Vulkan.

However, the Quadro M6000 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 43,301 places it in the 84th percentile among all GPUs in the database. That is a strong showing for a workstation card from the Maxwell generation. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER at 43,223 (0.2% behind). The Quadro also edges past the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile, which scores 43,667, meaning the Quadro is 0.8% ahead of that mobile flagship. So in aggregate synthetic performance, the Quadro M6000 is a capable card that sits comfortably in the upper tier of the database.

The TITAN V tells a different story. Its average benchmark score is 34,355, which sits in the 79th percentile. That is lower than the Quadro's 84th percentile, despite the TITAN V winning every direct comparison. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix. The TITAN V has ten recorded tests, including several Passmark entries where it scores modestly: Passmark DirectX 9 at 213, Passmark DirectX 10 at 153, Passmark DirectX 11 at 152, Passmark DirectX 12 at 81, Passmark G2D at 937, Passmark G3D at 19,805, and Passmark GPU Compute at 9,263. These lower scores drag down the average, even though the TITAN V dominates in compute-oriented workloads.

The TITAN V's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34,207 (0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 at 34,541 (0.5% ahead of the TITAN V), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB at 34,561 (0.6% ahead). The TITAN V is effectively surrounded by mid-range cards in average score, a consequence of its weak DirectX legacy scores.

The use-case split is clear. The Quadro M6000 is a professional workstation card whose average score benefits from consistent performance across the tests it runs. The TITAN V is a compute monster that excels in OpenCL and Vulkan but stumbles in older DirectX API tests, pulling its average down. For raw compute throughput, the TITAN V wins decisively. For a balanced average across a wider test suite, the Quadro actually lands higher in the percentile rankings.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The TITAN V uses the GV100 chip, built on Volta architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC.

Transistor counts show the scale of the jump. The Quadro packs 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The TITAN V integrates 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, with a density of 25.9 million per square millimeter. The TITAN V nearly triples the transistor count and nearly doubles the density.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth at 6.6 Gbps effective. The TITAN V uses 12 GB of HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 651.3 GB/s of bandwidth at 1696 Mbps effective. The TITAN V's memory bandwidth is more than double the Quadro's, a critical advantage for compute-heavy workloads.

Shader resources also scale dramatically. The Quadro has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The TITAN V has 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The TITAN V adds 2,048 more shaders and 128 more TMUs, while keeping the same ROP count.

The TITAN V introduces 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro. These tensor cores are designed for deep learning and matrix math, giving the TITAN V a capability the Quadro simply does not have. The TITAN V also supports FP16 compute at 29.80 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability at all.

Clock speeds favor the TITAN V as well. The Quadro runs at a 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The TITAN V runs at 1200 MHz base and 1455 MHz boost. The TITAN V's boost clock is 341 MHz higher, and its higher shader count compounds the advantage.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the architectural gap. The Quadro delivers 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s. The TITAN V delivers 139.7 GPixel/s and 465.6 GTexel/s. The TITAN V's texture rate is more than double the Quadro's.

Power delivery differs slightly. Both cards have a 250 W TDP and require a 600 W suggested PSU. The Quadro uses a single 8-pin connector, while the TITAN V uses a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector. Both are dual-slot designs with the same 267 mm length and 111 mm or 112 mm height.

Display outputs also differ. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The TITAN V offers 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43,301, placing it in the 84th percentile. The TITAN V has an average of 34,355, placing it in the 79th percentile.

Q: Does the TITAN V win every direct benchmark comparison?

A: Yes. In the recorded head-to-head tests, the TITAN V wins both Geekbench OpenCL (157,265 vs 39,688, a 74.8% margin) and Geekbench Vulkan (152,117 vs 46,913, a 69.2% margin).

Q: Why does the TITAN V have a lower average score despite winning all direct comparisons?

A: The TITAN V has ten recorded benchmark scores, including several low Passmark legacy DirectX results (DirectX 9 at 213, DirectX 10 at 153, DirectX 11 at 152, DirectX 12 at 81). These drag its average down. The Quadro has only two recorded scores, both relatively strong.

Q: What memory type does each card use?

A: The Quadro M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN V uses 12 GB of HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus with 651.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the TITAN V have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the TITAN V includes 640 tensor cores. The Quadro M6000 has no tensor cores.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the TITAN V?

A: The TITAN V has a launch MSRP of 2,999 USD. The Quadro M6000 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every internal specification except memory size, TDP, and API support.

• Chip and architecture: GM200 on Maxwell 2.0 for the Quadro; GV100 on Volta for the TITAN V.
• Process node: 28 nm for the Quadro; 12 nm for the TITAN V.
• Transistors: 8,000 million for the Quadro; 21,100 million for the TITAN V.
• Die size: 601 mm² for the Quadro; 815 mm² for the TITAN V.
• Transistor density: 13.3M / mm² for the Quadro; 25.9M / mm² for the TITAN V.
• Base clock: 988 MHz for the Quadro; 1200 MHz for the TITAN V.
• Boost clock: 1114 MHz for the Quadro; 1455 MHz for the TITAN V.
• Memory clock: 6.6 Gbps effective for the Quadro; 1696 Mbps effective for the TITAN V.
• Memory type: GDDR5 for the Quadro; HBM2 for the TITAN V.
• Memory bus width: 384 bit for the Quadro; 3072 bit for the TITAN V.
• Memory bandwidth: 317.4 GB/s for the Quadro; 651.3 GB/s for the TITAN V.
• Shading units: 3,072 for the Quadro; 5,120 for the TITAN V.
• TMUs: 192 for the Quadro; 320 for the TITAN V.
• ROPs: 96 for both.
• Tensor cores: none for the Quadro; 640 for the TITAN V.
• Pixel rate: 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro; 139.7 GPixel/s for the TITAN V.
• Texture rate: 213.9 GTexel/s for the Quadro; 465.6 GTexel/s for the TITAN V.
• FP32 compute: 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro; 14.90 TFLOPS for the TITAN V.
• FP16 compute: none listed for the Quadro; 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) for the TITAN V.
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin for the Quadro; 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin for the TITAN V.
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro; 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the TITAN V.
• Height: 111 mm for the Quadro; 112 mm for the TITAN V. The TITAN V also lists a width of 40 mm; the Quadro does not.
• Release date: March 20, 2015 for the Quadro; December 6, 2017 for the TITAN V.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two direct benchmark comparisons exist in the database, and the TITAN V wins both by overwhelming margins.

The largest win for the TITAN V comes in Geekbench OpenCL. The TITAN V scores 157,265, while the Quadro M6000 manages 39,688. The delta is 74.8% in favor of the TITAN V. This is a compute-oriented workload that leverages the TITAN V's higher shader count, tensor cores, HBM2 bandwidth, and higher clocks. The Quadro's Maxwell architecture, with its 6.844 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, simply cannot keep pace with the TITAN V's 14.90 TFLOPS.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, follows the same pattern. The TITAN V scores 152,117, and the Quadro scores 46,913. The delta is 69.2% in favor of the TITAN V. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the TITAN V's Volta architecture handles it far more efficiently than the older Maxwell design.

The Quadro has no wins in the recorded head-to-head results. The win count stands at 0 for the Quadro and 2 for the TITAN V. However, the broader benchmark picture matters. The Quadro's average score of 43,301 is higher than the TITAN V's 34,355, because the TITAN V's Passmark suite results are weak. In Passmark DirectX 12, the TITAN V scores just 81, the lowest of its recorded tests. In Passmark DirectX 11 it scores 152, and in DirectX 10 it scores 153. These legacy API results suggest the TITAN V is not optimized for older DirectX workloads, while the Quadro, with no such tests recorded, avoids the penalty in its average.

The data shows two valid but different products. The TITAN V is the clear winner in raw compute and modern API benchmarks, with more than double the FP32 throughput and more than double the memory bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 holds a higher aggregate percentile, but that reflects the narrow set of tests it runs. For users prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the TITAN V is the obvious choice. For those seeking a balanced workstation card with a high average score in the database, the Quadro M6000 remains respectable. The benchmark results indicate the TITAN V is the superior compute card, while the Quadro's ranking benefits from its limited test coverage.