Quadro M6000 vs TITAN Xp

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared TITAN Xp with Quadro M6000, including specs and performance data.

TITAN Xp
2017
12 GB GDDR5X, 250 Watt
50.41
+65.2%

TITAN Xp outperforms M6000 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking59182
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.893.32
Power efficiency13.828.37
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGP102GM200
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date6 April 2017 (7 years ago)21 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $4,199.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

TITAN Xp has 288% better value for money than Quadro M6000.

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 cores38403072
Core clock speed1405 MHz988 MHz
Boost clock speed1582 MHz1114 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million8,000 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate379.7213.9
Floating-point processing power12.15 TFLOPS6.844 TFLOPS
ROPs9696
TMUs240192

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 3.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR5XGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount12 GB12 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1426 MHz1653 MHz
Memory bandwidth547.6 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA6.15.2

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.

TITAN Xp 50.41
+65.2%
Quadro M6000 30.51

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.

TITAN Xp 19424
+65.2%
Quadro M6000 11758

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.

TITAN Xp 72413
+83%
Quadro M6000 39571

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.

TITAN Xp 86160
+82.9%
Quadro M6000 47116

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

TITAN Xp 58384
+80.3%
Quadro M6000 32385

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 50.41 30.51
Recency 6 April 2017 21 March 2015
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm

TITAN Xp has a 65.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The TITAN Xp is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that TITAN Xp is a desktop card while Quadro M6000 is a workstation one.


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 TITAN Xp
TITAN Xp
NVIDIA Quadro M6000
Quadro M6000

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.


2.1 4668 votes

Rate TITAN Xp on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 150 votes

Rate Quadro M6000 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.