RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Quadro K6000

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K6000 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K6000
2013
12 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
20.89

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms K6000 by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking26172
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.2281.77
Power efficiency6.4745.75
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGK110BAD107
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)12 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,265 $649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 6602% better value for money than Quadro K6000.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores28802816
Core clock speed797 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed902 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate216.5187.4
Floating-point processing power5.196 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs24088
Tensor Coresno data88
Ray Tracing Coresno data22

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length267 mm168 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount12 GB16 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1502 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.4 GB/s256.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA3.58.9

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro K6000 20.89
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 45.92
+120%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro K6000 8059
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 17715
+120%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K6000 24089
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 87227
+262%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro K6000 25167
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 84610
+236%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.89 45.92
Recency 23 July 2013 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 119.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 221.4% lower power consumption.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K6000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K6000
Quadro K6000
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation
RTX 2000 Ada Generation

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 108 votes

Rate Quadro K6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 26 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.