NVIDIA T1000 vs NVIDIA Tesla M60 Comparison

The database pits two very different NVIDIA products against each other here: a low-power workstation card from the Turing era and a power-hungry Maxwell-based datacenter board. On paper the Tesla M60 looks like the bigger machine, with double the memory bus, more than twice the shading units, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The recorded benchmarks tell the opposite story. The T1000 wins both head-to-head tests, and that inversion is the most interesting thing about this matchup.

The Verdict

The data makes this a straightforward call for the T1000 in compute performance. It leads the geekbench_opencl test by 27.8% (37704 versus 29506) and the geekbench_vulkan test by 10.8% (34874 versus 31473), a clean sweep across every recorded benchmark. Its average score of 36289 places it at the 80th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Tesla M60's 30490 average sits at the 75th percentile. Both cards are end-of-life, so neither represents a current purchase path, but between the two, the recorded data favors the T1000 without exception. The only scenario where the M60's numbers still argue for it is raw output-side capacity: 8 GB of memory instead of 4 GB, and higher pixel and texture fill rates. If a workload depends on fill rate or memory size rather than compute scores, the M60's specifications are objectively larger. For everything the benchmarks measure, the T1000 wins.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from different worlds within NVIDIA's lineup. The T1000 is built on the TU117 chip, Turing architecture, on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 4,700 million transistors packed into a 200 mm² die, which works out to a density of 23.5M transistors per mm². The Tesla M60 uses the GM204 chip, Maxwell 2.0 architecture, on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 5,200 million transistors spread across a 398 mm² die, a much sparser 13.1M per mm². Nearly the same transistor budget, but the T1000 fits it into roughly half the die area thanks to the newer node.

The generation gap shows up everywhere else. The T1000 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, following Quadro Volta and succeeded by Workstation Ampere, and it released on 2021-05-05. The M60 belongs to the Tesla Maxwell (Mxx) generation, following Tesla Kepler and succeeded by Tesla Pascal, releasing on 2015-08-29. Despite that gap, both support the same API levels recorded in the database: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores listed.

The configuration philosophies diverge sharply. The M60 goes wide: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, a 256 bit bus carrying 8 GB of GDDR5 at 160.4 GB/s. The T1000 goes narrow and efficient: 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, a 128 bit bus carrying 4 GB of GDDR6 at 160.0 GB/s. Note how close those bandwidth figures are, essentially identical, despite the doubled bus width on the M60. The newer GDDR6 memory on the T1000, running at an effective 10 Gbps versus 5 Gbps on the M60's GDDR5, compensates for the narrower interface. Clocks tell a similar story: the T1000 boosts to 1395 MHz from a 1065 MHz base, while the M60 boosts to 1178 MHz from a base of just 557 MHz.

The FP32 numbers look like an M60 advantage on paper: 4.825 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS for the T1000. Yet the benchmarks reverse that expectation, which raises the question of how much headline TFLOPS actually predicts measured performance. The T1000 also records FP16 throughput of 5.000 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, a capability the M60's data simply does not list. The power profiles are dramatically different: a 50 W TDP, single-slot design with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU for the T1000, versus a 300 W TDP, dual-slot board needing an 8-pin connector and a suggested 700 W PSU for the M60. Physically, the T1000 measures 156 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the M60 stretches to 267 mm.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 37704 versus 29506 in geekbench_opencl (a 27.8% lead) and 34874 versus 31473 in geekbench_vulkan (a 10.8% lead).

Q: Does the Tesla M60's higher TFLOPS make it faster?

A: Not according to the measured data. The M60 records 4.825 TFLOPS FP32 against the T1000's 2.500 TFLOPS, yet the T1000 outperforms it in both benchmarks, suggesting the older Maxwell architecture and lower boost clock give away the theoretical advantage in practice.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: Effectively a tie. The M60 delivers 160.4 GB/s over a 256 bit GDDR5 bus, while the T1000 delivers 160.0 GB/s over a 128 bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: How do they compare against other GPUs in the database?

A: The T1000 averages 36289 and ranks in the 80th percentile, trading blows with rivals like the GeForce GTX TITAN X (36530 average, within 0.7%) and the Radeon Pro Duo (35860, with the T1000 1.2% ahead). The M60 averages 30490 at the 75th percentile, sitting almost exactly alongside the CMP 70HX (30476, a 0% delta) and the Radeon RX 6700 (30433, 0.2% apart).

Q: Can either card drive displays?

A: Only the T1000. It offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the M60 has no display outputs at all, consistent with its datacenter positioning.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The database records identical API support for both: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

• Chip: TU117 (T1000) versus GM204 (M60)
• Architecture: Turing versus Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: Quadro Turing (Tx000) versus Tesla Maxwell (Mxx)
• Process node: 12 nm versus 28 nm, both on TSMC
• Transistors: 4,700 million versus 5,200 million
• Die size: 200 mm² versus 398 mm², with density of 23.5M/mm² versus 13.1M/mm²
• Base clock: 1065 MHz versus 557 MHz; boost 1395 MHz versus 1178 MHz
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus (160.0 GB/s) versus 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus (160.4 GB/s); effective memory speed 10 Gbps versus 5 Gbps
• Shading units: 896 versus 2048; TMUs 56 versus 128; ROPs 32 versus 64
• Pixel rate: 44.64 GPixel/s versus 75.39 GPixel/s; texture rate 78.12 GTexel/s versus 150.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.500 TFLOPS versus 4.825 TFLOPS; the T1000 adds FP16 at 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1), unlisted for the M60
• TDP: 50 W versus 300 W; slot width single versus dual; power connectors none versus 1x 8-pin; suggested PSU 250 W versus 700 W
• Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus none
• Dimensions: 156 mm by 69 mm versus 267 mm length
• Release date: 2021-05-05 versus 2015-08-29
• Lineage: Quadro Volta to Workstation Ampere versus Tesla Kepler to Tesla Pascal

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The geekbench_opencl result is the headline number: 37704 for the T1000 against 29506 for the M60, a 27.8% margin. That is a decisive gap, and it becomes more striking when you remember the M60 carries 2048 shading units to the T1000's 896. The OpenCL test appears to reward the newer architecture's per-unit efficiency and higher clocks far more than raw unit count.

The geekbench_vulkan test is closer but still decisive: 34874 versus 31473, a 10.8% T1000 win. The narrowing is worth pondering. If the graphics-API test compresses the gap while the compute-API test widens it, the data hints that the T1000's advantage is strongest in general-purpose compute workloads, though with only two tests recorded, that remains an inference rather than a proven pattern.

The M60 records zero benchmark wins across the entire head-to-head set. Its context scores offer some consolation: its 30490 average places it essentially even with the CMP 70HX (30476, 0% delta) and marginally ahead of the Radeon RX 6800 (30095, 1.3%) and the GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29945, 1.8%). The T1000's context is arguably more impressive for its class: within 0.7% of the GTX TITAN X and ahead of the Quadro GV100 by 2.2%, a remarkable result for a 50 W single-slot card.

Where Each One Wins

The T1000 wins measured compute. Both benchmark victories belong to it, by 27.8% and 10.8%, and it does so while drawing 50 W instead of 300 W, in a single-slot, connector-free form factor with a compact 156 mm board. For any workload where the recorded Geekbench results are representative, the T1000 is the faster and far more efficient choice. It is also the only card of the two that can drive monitors, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it the sole option for anything involving displays. Its FP16 capability at 5.000 TFLOPS gives it a precision format the M60 does not list.

The M60 wins raw specification scale. Where the recorded benchmarks end, the hardware numbers begin: twice the memory capacity at 8 GB, double the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, and substantially higher fill rates (75.39 versus 44.64 GPixel/s, and 150.8 versus 78.12 GTexel/s). Workloads bound by memory footprint or fill rate rather than the tested compute paths would find more headroom on the M60, provided the 300 W TDP, 8-pin power requirement, dual-slot footprint, and 700 W PSU recommendation are accommodated.

The overall picture is a generational lesson: six years and a process-node jump from 28 nm to 12 nm let a card with less than half the shading units and one-sixth the power draw outperform its bigger predecessor in every test the database recorded.