GeForce GTX 980 vs Quadro P6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P6000 with GeForce GTX 980, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P6000
2016
24 GB 384-bit, 250 Watt
34.61
+39.3%

P6000 outperforms GTX 980 by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking111204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.179.51
Power efficiency11.0211.98
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGP102GM204
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 October 2016 (8 years ago)19 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,999 $549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

GTX 980 has 128% better value for money than Quadro P6000.

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 cores38402048
Core clock speed1506 MHz1064 MHz
Boost clock speed1645 MHz1216 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt165 Watt
Texture fill rate394.8155.6
Floating-point processing power12.63 TFLOPS4.981 TFLOPS
ROPs9664
TMUs240128

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2" (5.1 cm)2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)no data500 Watt
Supplementary power connectors1 x 8-pin2x 6-pin
SLI options++

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 type384 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount24 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1127 MHz7.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidthUp to 432 GB/s224 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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, 4x DisplayPortDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Sync IIno data
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
G-SYNC support-+
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream-+
GeForce ShadowPlay-+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorks-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
BatteryBoost-+
ECC (Error Correcting Code)+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
High-Performance Video I/O6+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA6.1+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

Quadro P6000 34.61
+39.3%
GTX 980 24.85

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.

Quadro P6000 15477
+39.3%
GTX 980 11113

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.

Quadro P6000 64134
+83.8%
GTX 980 34898

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Quadro P6000 70226
+75.4%
GTX 980 40029

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.

Quadro P6000 47462
+60.6%
GTX 980 29546

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 HD130−140
+38.3%
94
−38.3%
1440p70−75
+37.3%
51
−37.3%
4K50−55
+28.2%
39
−28.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p46.15
−690%
5.84
+690%
1440p85.70
−696%
10.76
+696%
4K119.98
−752%
14.08
+752%
  • GTX 980 has 690% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 980 has 696% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 980 has 752% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Battlefield 5 109
+0%
109
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 80
+0%
80
+0%
Fortnite 242
+0%
242
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 93
+0%
93
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Battlefield 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
Fortnite 116
+0%
116
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 72
+0%
72
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 79
+0%
79
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 82
+0%
82
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 56
+0%
56
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+0%
46
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 91
+0%
91
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 48
+0%
48
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 48
+0%
48
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 53
+0%
53
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 59
+0%
59
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 32
+0%
32
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 34
+0%
34
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20
+0%
20
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 25
+0%
25
+0%

This is how Quadro P6000 and GTX 980 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P6000 is 38% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P6000 is 37% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro P6000 is 28% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.61 24.85
Recency 1 October 2016 19 September 2014
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 165 Watt

Quadro P6000 has a 39.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 980, on the other hand, has 51.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop 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 P6000
Quadro P6000
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
GeForce GTX 980

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.


3.7 96 votes

Rate Quadro P6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1541 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 980 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P6000 or GeForce GTX 980, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.