RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile vs Quadro M6000 24 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 24 GB with RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile outperforms M6000 24 GB by a substantial 30% 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 | 233 | 150 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.14 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.54 | 61.74 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | GB206 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 March 2016 (9 years ago) | 19 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3072 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 952 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 1657 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 285.2 | 172.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | 11.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 32 MB |
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 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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:
| Full HD | 95−100
−35.8%
| 129
+35.8%
|
| 1440p | 50−55
−40%
| 70
+40%
|
| 4K | 60−65
−35%
| 81
+35%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 52.62 | no data |
| 1440p | 99.98 | no data |
| 4K | 83.32 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how M6000 24 GB and RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile is 36% faster in 1080p
- RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile is 40% faster in 1440p
- RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile is 35% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.44 | 35.71 |
| Recency | 5 March 2016 | 19 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
M6000 24 GB has a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile, on the other hand, has a 30.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 455.6% lower power consumption.
The RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M6000 24 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 24 GB is a workstation graphics card while RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
