NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 91% higher core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 574 MHz
• Around 47% higher texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel / s vs 32.1 GTexel / s
• Around 43% higher pipelines: 640 vs 448
• Around 46% better floating-point performance: 1,505 gflops vs 1,027.7 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 2.7x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 204 Watt
• Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3398 vs 2707
• Around 9% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10734 vs 9891
• 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 vs 24.377
• Around 39% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 vs 2.66
• Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 vs 34.891
• Around 92% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 vs 90.839
• Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 vs 3501
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 3689
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3335
• Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 vs 3501
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 3689
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3335

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 6000

• Around 50% higher maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 20% higher memory clock speed: 2988 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 83% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 451 vs 247

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 6000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3398 2707
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	247 451
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10734 9891
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	54.294 24.377
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	795.325 793.755
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.692 2.66
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	51.794 34.891
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	174.513 90.839
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 3501
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3714 3689
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3335
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 3501
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3714 3689
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3335

Compare specifications (specs)