GeForce GTX 480M SLI vs Quadro 6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 6000 with GeForce GTX 480M SLI, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 6000
2010
6 GB GDDR5, 204 Watt
6.04
+8.2%

6000 outperforms GTX 480M SLI by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking568586
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.17no data
Power efficiency2.364.45
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF100N11E-GTX-A3
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date10 December 2010 (14 years ago)25 May 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores448704
Core clock speed574 MHz425 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million6000 Million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)204 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate32.14no data
Floating-point processing power1.028 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48no data
TMUs56no data

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed747 MHz1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth143.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

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 DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Videono data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.0-

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:

900p65−70
+6.6%
61
−6.6%
Full HD70−75
+1.4%
69
−1.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p62.84no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how Quadro 6000 and GTX 480M SLI compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 6000 is 7% faster in 900p
  • Quadro 6000 is 1% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.04 5.58
Recency 10 December 2010 25 May 2010
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 204 Watt 100 Watt

Quadro 6000 has a 8.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GTX 480M SLI, on the other hand, has 104% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro 6000 and GeForce GTX 480M SLI.

Be aware that Quadro 6000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 480M SLI is a notebook one.

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 Quadro 6000
Quadro 6000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480M SLI
GeForce GTX 480M SLI

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.


3.8 40 votes

Rate Quadro 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GeForce GTX 480M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 6000 or GeForce GTX 480M SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.