NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards, so a side-by-side comparison must rely on their individual recorded scores. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q returns an average benchmark score of 11,088 across its single recorded test, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 workload. The Tesla M10, meanwhile, averages 9,724 across two tests: 10,318 in Geekbench OpenCL and 9,130 in Geekbench Vulkan. That gap, roughly 14% in favor of the newer card when comparing average scores, is substantial, but it masks a more important reality: the two cards are not even competing in the same performance tier.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies the picture. The RTX PRO 6000D sits in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at an identical 11,088 score, a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 550 trails by just 0.1% at 11,075, and the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is 0.4% behind at 11,047. The only card in that group that beats it is the AMD FirePro W4300, which scores 11,225, a 1.2% advantage. In other words, the RTX PRO 6000D's recorded score places it in a cluster of mid-range cards from very different eras, not at the top of any hierarchy.

The Tesla M10, by contrast, sits at the 47th percentile. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780, which is 0.6% ahead, while the Tesla C2070 scores 9,716 (0.1% behind), the Quadro P4000 scores 9,665 (0.6% behind), and the Radeon Pro WX 2100 scores 9,653 (0.7% behind). The M10's score distribution is interesting: its OpenCL result of 10,318 is notably higher than its Vulkan result of 9,130, a spread of about 13% within the same card. That suggests the M10's architecture responds very differently to different compute APIs, whereas the RTX PRO 6000D's single DX12 score gives no such insight.

The raw compute deltas between the two cards are enormous. The RTX PRO 6000D delivers 110.1 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Tesla M10 manages just 1.672 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly 66. Pixel throughput tells a similar story: 439.3 GPixel/s versus 20.90 GPixel/s, about 21 times higher. Texture rate is 1,720.6 GTexel/s against 52.24 GTexel/s, more than 32 times higher. These are not incremental improvements; they are generational leaps that separate two completely different product categories. The RTX PRO 6000D also has 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores, features the Tesla M10 lacks entirely, having neither RT cores nor tensor cores listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q wins in every measurable compute category where both cards have data. Its FP32 throughput of 110.1 TFLOPS dwarfs the M10's 1.672 TFLOPS, making it the clear choice for any workload that relies on general-purpose shader compute. The 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus delivers 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth, compared to the M10's 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 83.20 GB/s. That is roughly 21.5 times more memory bandwidth, which directly impacts large dataset operations, dense simulation work, and any task where data movement is the bottleneck. The RTX PRO 6000D also supports 12 Ultimate (12_2) DirectX, while the M10 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the newer card can run the latest graphics feature sets and the older one cannot.

The Tesla M10's strengths are more situational. It is a Maxwell-generation card from 2016, listed as end-of-life, and its 225 W TDP is lower than the RTX PRO 6000D's 300 W. For legacy environments that require Maxwell-specific behavior, or for systems where the lack of display outputs on the M10 is not a concern (it is a compute-only accelerator), the older card remains functional. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory is still enough for certain inference workloads or virtual desktop infrastructure tasks, though the database does not include any specific benchmarks for those scenarios. The M10's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1070, a consumer card, and the Quadro P4000, which suggests it was positioned in the mid-range of the Tesla lineup at its release.

The RTX PRO 6000D, by contrast, is an active product with a launch MSRP of 8,565 USD. It targets workstation-class workloads: the 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor visualization, and the PCIe 5.0 x16 interface doubles the bandwidth available to the M10's PCIe 3.0 x16. The M10 has no display outputs at all, reinforcing its role as a headless compute card. For any modern workload, the RTX PRO 6000D wins on every axis the database measures.

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the two cards compare?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q averages 11,088 across its recorded test, while the Tesla M10 averages 9,724 across its two recorded tests, a difference of roughly 14% in favor of the newer card.

Q: Does the Tesla M10 support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: No. The database lists no RT cores and no tensor cores for the Tesla M10. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q includes 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 83.20 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D delivers 110.1 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Tesla M10 delivers 1.672 TFLOPS, which is roughly 66 times lower.

Q: Are either of these cards still in production?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q is listed as Active, with a release date of 2025-03-17. The Tesla M10 is listed as End-of-life, with a release date of 2016-05-17.

Q: What DirectX version does each card support?

A: The RTX PRO 6000D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Tesla M10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification. The RTX PRO 6000D uses the GB202 chip on a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. Transistor count is 92,200 million versus 1,870 million, and die size is 750 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is 122.9M per mm² for the newer card and 12.6M per mm² for the older one.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The RTX PRO 6000D has a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2288 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective). The Tesla M10 runs at 1033 MHz base and 1306 MHz boost, with memory at 1300 MHz (5.2 Gbps effective). The RTX PRO 6000D has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The Tesla M10 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX PRO 6000D includes 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores; the M10 has neither.

Power and connectivity also diverge. The RTX PRO 6000D is rated at 300 W TDP with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested 700 W PSU. The Tesla M10 is rated at 225 W with a 1x 8-pin connector and a suggested 550 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards and both are 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, but the RTX PRO 6000D is 111 mm tall and 40 mm wide, while the M10's height and width are not recorded. The RTX PRO 6000D uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and has 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The Tesla M10 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and has no display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is the defining story. The RTX PRO 6000D is built on Blackwell 2.0, the latest generation from NVIDIA, and uses the GB202 chip. The Tesla M10 is built on Maxwell, a much older architecture, using the GM107 chip. The fabrication process moved from 28 nm to 5 nm, enabling the massive transistor count increase from 1,870 million to 92,200 million on a die that is roughly five times larger (750 mm² versus 148 mm²).

The memory subsystem changed entirely. The RTX PRO 6000D uses GDDR7, the newest memory type, on a 512-bit bus, achieving 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The Tesla M10 uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 83.20 GB/s. FP16 support is present on the RTX PRO 6000D at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (110.1 TFLOPS), while the Tesla M10 lists no FP16 capability. The RTX PRO 6000D also includes dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, features that did not exist in the Maxwell generation. The API support reflects this: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), and while both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, the underlying hardware capabilities are vastly different.

The Tesla M10's generation is listed as Tesla Maxwell (Mxx), with a predecessor of Tesla Kepler and a successor of Tesla Pascal. The RTX PRO 6000D's generation is Blackwell PRO W (x000), with a predecessor of Workstation Ada. The newer card has no successor listed. The M10 is end-of-life, while the RTX PRO 6000D is active. The release dates are separated by nearly nine years: March 2025 versus May 2016.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split. The RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q is the only rational choice for any modern workload. Its 110.1 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 96 GB of GDDR7 memory, 1.79 TB/s bandwidth, and dedicated RT and tensor cores place it in a different category entirely from the Tesla M10. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with nearest rivals including the Radeon RX 550 and GTX 1650 SUPER, suggests it occupies a specific niche in the current market, but that niche is far above anything the M10 can reach. The M10's 47th percentile, with rivals like the GTX 1070 and Quadro P4000, confirms it was a mid-range card even at its release.

For users running legacy Maxwell-era code, or for systems that require the M10's specific 225 W power profile, the older card remains functional. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and 1.672 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are sufficient for basic compute tasks, and its lack of display outputs indicates it was designed for headless server environments. But the absence of RT cores, tensor cores, and FP16 support means it cannot handle the workloads the RTX PRO 6000D is built for.

The RTX PRO 6000D is the pick for anyone doing modern graphics, AI inference, or large-scale data processing. The Tesla M10 is the pick for maintaining legacy infrastructure where the newer card's features are irrelevant. The database records no direct head-to-head tests, but the individual scores, specification differences, and architectural gaps make the outcome unambiguous. The RTX PRO 6000D wins on every measurable axis, and the M10's only advantages are its lower TDP and its compatibility with older software environments.