Quadro RTX 6000 vs GeForce GTX 960

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960 with Quadro RTX 6000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960
2015, $199
4 GB GDDR5, 120 Watt
14.75
RTX 6000
2018, $6,299
24 GB GDDR6, 260 Watt
42.47
+188%

RTX 6000 outperforms GTX 960 by a whopping 188% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking398102
Place by popularity80not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.242.03
Power efficiency9.5112.64
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM206TU102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date22 January 2015 (11 years ago)13 August 2018 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GTX 960 has 306% better value for money than RTX 6000.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores10244608
Core clock speed1127 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speed1178 MHz1770 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate75.39509.8
Floating-point processing power2.413 TFLOPS16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs3296
TMUs64288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72
L1 Cache384 KB4.5 MB
L2 Cache1024 KB6 MB

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mm267 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)400 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options+-

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 amount4 GB24 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth112 GB/s672.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.24x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+7.5
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GTX 960 14.75
RTX 6000 42.47
+188%

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.

GTX 960 6147
Samples: 26756
RTX 6000 17693
+188%
Samples: 284

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.

GTX 960 18892
RTX 6000 147303
+680%

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.

GTX 960 20495
RTX 6000 127979
+524%

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.

GTX 960 17784
RTX 6000 159550
+797%

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD65
−177%
180−190
+177%
4K29
−176%
80−85
+176%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.06
+1043%
34.99
−1043%
4K6.86
+1047%
78.74
−1047%
  • GTX 960 has 1043% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 960 has 1047% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−177%
230−240
+177%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−174%
85−90
+174%
Palworld 35−40
−186%
100−105
+186%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 30−35
−181%
90−95
+181%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60−65
−181%
180−190
+181%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−177%
230−240
+177%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−174%
85−90
+174%
Far Cry 5 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
Fortnite 80−85
−186%
240−250
+186%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−174%
170−180
+174%
Palworld 35−40
−186%
100−105
+186%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−173%
150−160
+173%
Valorant 120−130
−187%
350−400
+187%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 60−65
−181%
180−190
+181%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
−177%
230−240
+177%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
−176%
550−600
+176%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−174%
85−90
+174%
Dota 2 90−95
−187%
270−280
+187%
Far Cry 5 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
Fortnite 80−85
−186%
240−250
+186%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−174%
170−180
+174%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
−186%
140−150
+186%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−174%
85−90
+174%
Palworld 35−40
−186%
100−105
+186%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−173%
150−160
+173%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
−180%
140−150
+180%
Valorant 120−130
−187%
350−400
+187%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
−181%
180−190
+181%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
−174%
85−90
+174%
Dota 2 90−95
−187%
270−280
+187%
Far Cry 5 45−50
−186%
140−150
+186%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
−174%
170−180
+174%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
−173%
150−160
+173%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
−186%
80−85
+186%
Valorant 120−130
−187%
350−400
+187%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 80−85
−186%
240−250
+186%
Palworld 35−40
−186%
100−105
+186%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−176%
80−85
+176%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
−170%
300−310
+170%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−171%
65−70
+171%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−163%
50−55
+163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
−169%
350−400
+169%
Valorant 140−150
−186%
400−450
+186%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
−186%
120−130
+186%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−169%
35−40
+169%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−188%
95−100
+188%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
−170%
100−105
+170%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−186%
60−65
+186%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
−188%
95−100
+188%
Palworld 20−22
−175%
55−60
+175%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−173%
30−33
+173%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
−178%
75−80
+178%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−173%
30−33
+173%
Palworld 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−186%
60−65
+186%
Valorant 70−75
−188%
210−220
+188%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
−173%
60−65
+173%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
−173%
30−33
+173%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
Dota 2 50−55
−178%
150−160
+178%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−181%
45−50
+181%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−169%
70−75
+169%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−186%
40−45
+186%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
−167%
40−45
+167%
Palworld 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%

This is how GTX 960 and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 6000 is 177% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 6000 is 176% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.75 42.47
Recency 22 January 2015 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 24 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 260 Watt

GTX 960 has 117% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 188% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 960 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

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.


4 4714 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 148 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 960 or Quadro RTX 6000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.