Quadro M6000 24 GB vs FirePro R5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro R5000 and Quadro M6000 24 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M6000 24 GB outperforms R5000 by a whopping 339% 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 | 621 | 233 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.27 | 1.16 |
| Power efficiency | 3.24 | 8.55 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GM200 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 February 2013 (12 years ago) | 5 March 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,099 | $4,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
M6000 24 GB has 330% better value for money than FirePro R5000.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 768 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.60 | 285.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.267 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 48 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 3 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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 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 | 2 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 317.4 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 | 2x mini-DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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.
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.
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 | 6.33 | 27.82 |
| Recency | 25 February 2013 | 5 March 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 24 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 250 Watt |
M6000 24 GB has a 339.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 40% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M6000 24 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro R5000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
