NVIDIA Quadro P6000 vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

NVIDIA’s Pascal generation produced two GP102-based cards aimed at very different buyers: the TITAN X Pascal, a GeForce-branded enthusiast part, and the Quadro P6000, a workstation-focused professional card. Both share the same fundamental silicon, 16 nm TSMC process, and 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, but they are configured and priced for separate workloads. The benchmark data shows the TITAN X Pascal holds a slight edge in the recorded tests, while the Quadro P6000 counters with double the memory and higher clock speeds. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, how they differ architecturally, and which one the data supports for specific tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN X Pascal wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, but the margins are modest. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 66,696 against the Quadro P6000’s 66,382, a delta of 0.5%. The Vulkan test shows a larger gap: 77,499 versus 73,590, a 5.3% advantage. These results put the TITAN X Pascal at an average benchmark score of 72,098, which places it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000 averages 69,986 and sits in the 90th percentile. In terms of raw compute, the Quadro P6000 actually leads on paper: it delivers 12.63 TFLOPS FP32 versus 10.97 TFLOPS, and its texture rate is 394.8 GTexel/s versus 342.9 GTexel/s. Yet the real-world benchmark scores favor the TITAN X Pascal, suggesting driver optimizations or memory timing differences play a role.

Where the Quadro P6000 clearly wins is memory capacity. It ships with 24 GB of GDDR5X, exactly double the TITAN X Pascal’s 12 GB. For workloads that exceed 12 GB—such as large 3D scenes, high-resolution texture sets, or multi-GPU rendering—the Quadro P6000 is the only viable option between these two. The Quadro also has a higher base clock (1506 MHz vs 1417 MHz) and boost clock (1645 MHz vs 1531 MHz), plus more shading units (3840 vs 3584) and TMUs (240 vs 224). These specs suggest the Quadro should win compute-heavy tasks, but the benchmark data does not reflect that advantage in the two tests recorded. The TITAN X Pascal’s wins are narrow in OpenCL and more decisive in Vulkan, making it the better choice for API-level performance in those specific tests.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the GP102 chip on TSMC’s 16 nm process, with identical transistor counts (11,800 million) and die size (471 mm²). The transistor density is the same at 25.1M per mm². The core configuration differs: the Quadro P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the TITAN X Pascal has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and also 96 ROPs. The Quadro’s extra 256 shading units and 16 TMUs explain its higher theoretical peak performance—12.63 TFLOPS FP32 and 394.8 GTexel/s texture rate versus 10.97 TFLOPS and 342.9 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is also slightly higher on the Quadro: 157.9 GPixel/s versus 147.0 GPixel/s, due to its higher clocks.

Memory subsystems diverge beyond capacity. Both use GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, but the TITAN X Pascal runs its memory at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, yielding 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P6000 runs slower at 1127 MHz with 9 Gbps effective, producing 432.8 GB/s. That is a 47.6 GB/s difference in favor of the TITAN X Pascal, which partially explains why it wins the Vulkan test despite fewer compute units. The TITAN X Pascal also has a different display output configuration: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a—no HDMI. Both cards share the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Power delivery differs in connector layout. The TITAN X Pascal uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin configuration, while the Quadro P6000 only needs a single 8-pin. Both have a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W PSU. Physical dimensions are nearly identical: both are 267 mm long and 112 mm (TITAN) or 111 mm (Quadro) tall, with the TITAN being 40 mm wide. Neither card has RT or tensor cores, as Pascal predates the Turing architecture. FP16 performance is severely reduced on both—171.5 GFLOPS on the TITAN and 197.4 GFLOPS on the Quadro—due to a 1:64 ratio, meaning these are purely FP32-oriented parts.

The Verdict

The data supports the TITAN X Pascal for users prioritizing raw benchmark performance, especially in Vulkan, where it leads by 5.3%. Its higher memory bandwidth (480.4 GB/s vs 432.8 GB/s) and faster effective memory speed (10 Gbps vs 9 Gbps) give it an edge in bandwidth-sensitive tests despite lower core counts. It also wins the OpenCL test by a slim 0.5%, making it the stronger overall performer in the two recorded benchmarks. The TITAN X Pascal’s average benchmark score of 72,098 is 3.0% higher than the Quadro P6000’s 69,986, and its 91st percentile ranking versus 90th confirms a slight overall advantage.

The Quadro P6000 is the choice for memory-bound professional workloads. Its 24 GB frame buffer is the defining feature—no amount of benchmark delta in favor of the TITAN X Pascal compensates for running out of VRAM. The Quadro also has higher clocks, more shaders, and higher FP32 throughput, which the data does not fully capture in these two tests. If a task scales with raw compute and fits within 12 GB, the Quadro’s theoretical specs suggest it should perform better, but the recorded benchmarks do not confirm this. For anyone who needs more than 12 GB of VRAM or requires a professional-grade card with 4x DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro P6000 is the only option here. For gaming or general compute that stays under 12 GB, the TITAN X Pascal’s benchmark wins make it the practical pick.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X, while the TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB. The Quadro offers exactly double the memory capacity.

Q: Is the TITAN X Pascal faster in benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins both recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL by 0.5% (66,696 vs 66,382) and Geekbench Vulkan by 5.3% (77,499 vs 73,590). Its average benchmark score is 72,098 versus 69,986 for the Quadro P6000.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 have higher clock speeds?

A: Yes. The Quadro P6000 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost, compared to 1417 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost on the TITAN X Pascal. That is a 89 MHz higher base and 114 MHz higher boost clock.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The TITAN X Pascal has 480.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro P6000 has 432.8 GB/s. The TITAN leads by 47.6 GB/s, despite the Quadro having more VRAM.

Q: Are these cards good for ray tracing?

A: No. Both cards have no RT cores or tensor cores. They are based on the Pascal architecture, which predates hardware ray tracing acceleration.

Q: What display outputs differ?

A: The TITAN X Pascal has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro P6000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, with no HDMI output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Vulkan test is the decisive win for the TITAN X Pascal. It scores 77,499 against the Quadro P6000’s 73,590, a 5.3% delta. This is the larger of the two margins and suggests the TITAN’s higher memory bandwidth (480.4 GB/s vs 432.8 GB/s) and faster effective memory speed (10 Gbps vs 9 Gbps) provide a tangible advantage in Vulkan workloads. The Quadro’s extra 256 shading units and 114 MHz higher boost clock do not translate into a win here, indicating that memory throughput matters more than core count in this API.

The Geekbench OpenCL test is much closer. The TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696, just 314 points ahead of the Quadro P6000’s 66,382—a 0.5% delta. This near tie is notable because the Quadro has higher theoretical compute (12.63 TFLOPS vs 10.97 TFLOPS) and clock speeds. The fact that the TITAN still wins suggests driver overhead or memory latency differences offset the Quadro’s hardware advantage. In percentage terms, the TITAN’s win in OpenCL is ten times smaller than its Vulkan victory, but it still counts.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the TITAN X Pascal’s 72,098 is 3.0% higher than the Quadro P6000’s 69,986. The TITAN’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73,370 (1.7% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379 (0.4% lower). The Quadro P6000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829 (1.2% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.2% higher). Both cards sit in the same performance tier, but the TITAN edges out the Quadro consistently across both tests.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is significant: the Quadro P6000 has 3840 shading units and 240 TMUs, while the TITAN X Pascal has 3584 shading units and 224 TMUs. Both have 96 ROPs. Clock speeds favor the Quadro: 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost versus 1417 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost. This results in the Quadro having higher pixel rate (157.9 GPixel/s vs 147.0 GPixel/s), texture rate (394.8 GTexel/s vs 342.9 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (12.63 TFLOPS vs 10.97 TFLOPS).

Memory is where the cards diverge most. The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X, while the TITAN X Pascal has 12 GB. The TITAN runs memory at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective speed, producing 480.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro runs at 1127 MHz with 9 Gbps effective, yielding 432.8 GB/s. Both use a 384-bit bus. The TITAN’s higher bandwidth is a key differentiator in benchmark performance.

Power and physical differences are minor. The TITAN X Pascal uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the Quadro P6000 uses a single 8-pin. Both have a 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU. The TITAN is 40 mm wide; the Quadro’s width is not listed. Both are 267 mm long, with heights of 112 mm (TITAN) and 111 mm (Quadro). Display outputs differ: the TITAN includes HDMI 2.0, while the Quadro has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no HDMI. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both lack RT and tensor cores.