Quadro M6000 24 GB vs Quadro NVS 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 and Quadro M6000 24 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 290
2007
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.59

M6000 24 GB outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 5122% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1204179
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.032.84
Power efficiency1.938.45
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameG86GM200
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date4 October 2007 (17 years ago)5 March 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $4,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M6000 24 GB has 9367% better value for money than NVS 290.

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 cores163072
Core clock speed459 MHz988 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1114 MHz
Number of transistors210 million8,000 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672285.2
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPS6.844 TFLOPS
ROPs496
TMUs8256

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 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount256 MB24 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz1653 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s317.4 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 Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 4x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA1.15.2

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.

NVS 290 0.59
M6000 24 GB 30.81
+5122%

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.

NVS 290 228
M6000 24 GB 11871
+5107%

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 0.59 30.81
Recency 4 October 2007 5 March 2016
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 250 Watt

NVS 290 has 1090.5% lower power consumption.

M6000 24 GB, on the other hand, has a 5122% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 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 NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290
NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB
Quadro M6000 24 GB

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.


3.4 21 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 16 votes

Rate Quadro M6000 24 GB 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.