OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA Quadro M6000 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,570VRAM:24 GBMemory bus width:384 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro M6000
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

40%

5.3

Technical score

25%

5.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 88% of graphics cards
4.9

Value for money

Value for money
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

2.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
5.3

Technical score

Technical score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components

44%

3.2

Performance

24%

6.8

Memory

12%

6.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 80%
5.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

5.3

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 87%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-quadro-m6000
  • nvidia-quadro-m6000
nvidia-quadro-m6000
nvidia-quadro-m6000
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro M6000

Technical score
Technical score
5.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

44%

3.2

Performance

24%

6.8

Memory

12%

6.6

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

5.3
Reviews score
5.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

2.2

Price

4.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
5,086 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 5,086 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 84.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
11,773 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 11,773 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 81.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
5,454 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 5,454 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 81.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
6.84 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 6.84 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 80.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
24 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 24 GB of VRAM, which is more than 91.2% of graphics cards and equal to 5.5% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
384 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 384 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 89.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
317 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 317 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 69.7% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
6,612 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 6,612 MHz, which is slower than that of 93% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
4
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 4 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.2 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.2 Gbps, which is slower than on 58.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
250 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 250 W under peak load, which is higher than 57.6% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
250 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 250 W, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
250 W
Show more
Size
267x 111x 38 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
112.2 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112.2 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,023 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,023 g, which is heavier than 50.8% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 12 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (24 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    24 GB vs 12 GB
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 12.8 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • 12 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (24 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    24 GB vs 12 GB
  • 192 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (384 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    384 bit vs 192 bit
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 12.8 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112.2 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112.2 mm vs 125 mm
  • 55.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,114 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,114 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 48.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (988 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    988 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 26.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.3

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.3 vs 7.2
  • 26.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 87% of models

    5.3

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.3 vs 7.2
  • 50.6% worse value for money
    NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (4.92 vs 7.4).
    4.92 vs 7.41
  • 3.02x more expensive
    NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,570 vs £520).
    £1,570 vs £520
  • 55.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,114 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,114 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 48.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (988 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    988 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 69.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (6.8 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    6.84 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 33.7% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (106.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    106.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    March 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 24.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (285.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    285.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 48% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (11,773 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    11,773 points vs 22,638 points
  • 65.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (5,086 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    5,086 points vs 14,779 points
  • 99.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.11 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 54.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (5,454 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    5,454 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 58.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 65.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (6,612 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    6,612 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 29.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (317 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    317 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 87.5% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (3 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    3 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.5% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,653 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,653 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • 2.04x larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (601 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    601 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 65.1% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (8,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    8,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.1a).
    1.4 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 W
  • 16 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (83 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    83 °C vs 67 °C
  • 75% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (21 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    21 W vs 12 W
  • 13.6% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (250 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    250 W vs 220 W
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Shop video
Overview video
Brand video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
3dvf.com
≈ estimated
17/05/2015
Benchmark test · Quadro vs. Titan
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is about 65% faster than the Titan in Octane rendering and runs Battlefield 4 smoothly, though its Cinebench lead is small.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA Quadro M6000

  • Exceptional performance in professional OpenGL applications like SolidWorks and PTC Creo compared to gaming cards
  • Large 12GB or 24GB VRAM capacity allows for complex projects with multiple layers and advanced effects
  • Supports up to four 4K displays at 60Hz from a single card
  • Includes ECC (Error Correction Code) memory for increased stability in mission-critical tasks
  • Power-efficient design for its class, requiring only a single 8-pin power connector
  • Reliable, application-specific drivers tailored for professional workstation software stability

What customers don't like about NVIDIA Quadro M6000

  • Extremely high initial launch price (around $5,000) makes it inaccessible for many small operations
  • Poor double-precision (FP64) performance compared to older Kepler-based architectures like the K6000
  • Lack of optimized gaming drivers results in lower performance in modern games compared to consumer cards like the RTX 3060
  • Outdated 28nm architecture lacks modern features such as hardware-accelerated ray tracing or DLSS
  • Limited effectiveness for modern AI and machine learning tasks compared to newer generations

Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is a high-end professional workstation graphics card built on the 28nm Maxwell 2.0 architecture (GM200), featuring 3,072 CUDA cores, a 384-bit memory interface, and a 250W TDP. It was released with a 12GB GDDR5 VRAM configuration and later updated with a massive 24GB variant, delivering up to 7 TFLOPS of single-precision performance and support for four 4K displays at 60Hz. Its primary strengths include exceptional stability for certified professional applications, vast memory for large-scale rendering or seismic datasets, and dual-slot efficiency requiring only a single 8-pin power connector. However, it suffers from poor double-precision (FP64) performance compared to older Kepler-based predecessors and is now considered energy-inefficient and technologically dated compared to modern RTX workstation cards.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro M6000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found