GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 vs Quadro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 with GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
M6000 outperforms 780 Rev. 2 by a whopping 183% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 231 | 497 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.42 | 1.14 |
| Power efficiency | 8.70 | 3.07 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | GK110B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (11 years ago) | 10 September 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro M6000 has 25% better value for money than GTX 780 Rev. 2.
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 cores | 3072 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 863 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 7,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 173.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | 4.156 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 48 |
| TMUs | 192 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 1536 KB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 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 | 28.10 | 9.93 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 10 September 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 3 GB |
Quadro M6000 has a 183% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 780 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
