Quadro NVS 5100M vs Quadro 6000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 6000 with Quadro NVS 5100M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 6000
2010
6 GB GDDR5, 204 Watt
7.00
+637%

6000 outperforms NVS 5100M by a whopping 637% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5591125
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.18no data
Power efficiency2.361.87
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GT2xx (2010)
GPU code nameGF100N10P-NS
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date10 December 2010 (14 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores44848
Core clock speed574 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)204 Watt35 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 datamedium sized
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount6 GB1 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed747 MHz800 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10.1
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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
World of Tanks 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 37 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.00 0.95
Recency 10 December 2010 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 204 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro 6000 has a 636.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

NVS 5100M, on the other hand, has 482.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 6000 is a workstation card while Quadro NVS 5100M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Quadro NVS 5100M
Quadro NVS 5100M

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
1 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 5100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.