Quadro 6000 vs Tesla K8
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K8 and Quadro 6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K8 outperforms 6000 by a considerable 42% 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 | 516 | 615 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 7.01 | 2.42 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,399 |
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 | 1536 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 693 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 811 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 204 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.8 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.491 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 768 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 248 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 747 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 143.4 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 2.0 |
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 9.01 | 6.35 |
| Recency | 16 September 2014 | 10 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 204 Watt |
Tesla K8 has a 41.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 104% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K8 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 6000 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.
