Quadro FX 1800 vs Quadro K6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K6000 and Quadro FX 1800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K6000 outperforms FX 1800 by a whopping 1914% 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 | 318 | 1168 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.52 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 6.52 | 1.24 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | G94 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 30 March 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,265 | $489 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro K6000 has 5100% better value for money than FX 1800.
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 | 2880 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 59 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 216.5 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.196 TFLOPS | 0.176 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 12 |
| TMUs | 240 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 48 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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 198 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 768 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 38.4 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 DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.5 | 1.1 |
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 | 18.93 | 0.94 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 30 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 768 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 59 Watt |
Quadro K6000 has a 1913.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1800, on the other hand, has 281.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1800 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.
