Tesla T4 vs Quadro K6000

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Quadro K6000
2013
12 GB GDDR5
20.82

Tesla T4 outperforms Quadro K6000 by 35% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking246185
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.2719.03
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code nameGK110BTU104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (10 years ago)13 September 2018 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,265 no data
Current price$429 (0.1x MSRP)$782

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Tesla T4 has 69% better value for money than Quadro K6000.

Detailed specifications

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 cores28802560
Core clock speed797 MHz585 MHz
Boost clock speed902 MHz1590 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate216.5254.4
Floating-point performance5,196 gflopsno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount12 GB16 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz10000 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.4 GB/s320.0 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA3.57.5

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 K6000 20.82
Tesla T4 28.18
+35.4%

Tesla T4 outperforms Quadro K6000 by 35% 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 K6000 8059
Tesla T4 10908
+35.4%

Tesla T4 outperforms Quadro K6000 by 35% in Passmark.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

Quadro K6000 22920
Tesla T4 61276
+167%

Tesla T4 outperforms Quadro K6000 by 167% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

Quadro K6000 17571
Tesla T4 70627
+302%

Tesla T4 outperforms Quadro K6000 by 302% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

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 20.82 28.18
Recency 23 July 2013 13 September 2018
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 70 Watt

The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K6000 in performance tests.


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 K6000
Quadro K6000
NVIDIA Tesla T4
Tesla T4

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.9 100 votes

Rate Quadro K6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 208 votes

Rate Tesla T4 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.