
Quadro 6000
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 560
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Quadro 6000 is positioned at rank #374 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 6000
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 560 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro 6000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+500%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 560 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 560 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $150), it costs 80% less, resulting in a 414.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+414.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro 6000 and GeForce GTX 560

Quadro 6000
The Quadro 6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 10 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 204W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,692 points. Launch price was $4,399.

GeForce GTX 560
The GeForce GTX 560 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 810 MHz. It has 336 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,768 points. Launch price was $199.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 6000 scores 2,692 and the GeForce GTX 560 reaches 2,768 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 6000 is built on Fermi while the GeForce GTX 560 uses Fermi 2.0, both on a 40 nm process. Shader units: 448 (Quadro 6000) vs 336 (GeForce GTX 560). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Quadro 6000) vs 1.089 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 560).
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,692 | 2,768+3% |
| Architecture | Fermi | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 448+33% | 336 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.089 TFLOPS+6% |
| ROPs | 48+50% | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+100% | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB+50% | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro 6000 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 560 has 1 GB. The Quadro 6000 offers 500% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 768 KB (Quadro 6000) vs 512 KB (GeForce GTX 560) — the Quadro 6000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+500% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB+50% | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 6000 draws 204W versus the GeForce GTX 560's 150W — a 30.5% difference. The GeForce GTX 560 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 6000) vs 500W (GeForce GTX 560). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin.
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 204W | 150W-26% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 2x 6-pin |
| Perf/Watt | 13.2 | 18.5+40% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro 6000 launched at $4399 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 560 launched at $199 and now averages $30. The GeForce GTX 560 costs 80% less ($120 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 17.9 (Quadro 6000) vs 92.3 (GeForce GTX 560) — the GeForce GTX 560 offers 415.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 560 is the newer GPU (2011 vs 2010).
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | GeForce GTX 560 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4399 | $199-95% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $30-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.9 | 92.3+416% |
| Codename | GF100 | GF114 |
| Release | December 10 2010 | May 17 2011 |
| Ranking | #615 | #605 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.

















