Quadro RTX 6000 vs GeForce GTX 285
Aggregated performance score
Quadro RTX 6000 outperforms GeForce GTX 285 by 1146% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 657 | 57 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.64 | 10.09 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | TU102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 December 2008 (15 years old) | 13 August 2018 (5 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $359 | $6,299 |
| Current price | $98 (0.3x MSRP) | $3083 (0.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 6000 has 1477% better value for money than GTX 285.
Technical specs
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 | 240 | 4608 |
| CUDA cores | 240 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 648 MHz | 1440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 51.8 billion/sec | 509.8 |
| Floating-point performance | 708.5 gflops | no data |
Size and 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm) | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1242 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 159.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
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 | HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Quadro RTX 6000 outperforms GeForce GTX 285 by 1146% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro RTX 6000 outperforms GeForce GTX 285 by 1145% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 3.91 | 48.72 |
| Recency | 23 December 2008 | 13 August 2018 |
| Cost | $359 | $6299 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 260 Watt |
The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 285 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
