Quadro K6000 vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile with Quadro K6000, including specs and performance data.
Quadro K6000 outperforms P4000 Mobile by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 266 | 260 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.07 | 1.30 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N17E-Q3 | GK110B |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $5,265 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
P4000 Mobile has 598% better value for money than Quadro K6000.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 2880 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 216.5 |
| Floating-point performance | 4.398 gflops | 5.196 gflops |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6006 MHz | 6008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 3.5 |
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 | 20.43 | 20.90 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 225 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 125% lower power consumption.
Quadro K6000, on the other hand, has a 2.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4000 Mobile and Quadro K6000.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro K6000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
