Quadro K6000 vs Quadro M5500
Quadro K6000
Popular choices:
Quadro M5500
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K6000 is positioned at rank 319 and the Quadro M5500 is on rank 141, so the Quadro M5500 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K6000
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M5500
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro K6000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (12 GB vs 8 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M5500.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (265mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M5500 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M5500 holds the technical lead. Priced at $200 (vs $300), it costs 33% less, resulting in a 48.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+48.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($300) | ✅More affordable ($200) |
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 K6000 and Quadro M5500
Quadro K6000
The Quadro K6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 797 MHz to 902 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,993 points. Launch price was $5,265.
Quadro M5500
The Quadro M5500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 8 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1165 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,915 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K6000 scores 7,993 and the Quadro M5500 reaches 7,915 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K6000 is built on Kepler while the Quadro M5500 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,880 (Quadro K6000) vs 2,048 (Quadro M5500). Raw compute: 5.196 TFLOPS (Quadro K6000) vs 4.772 TFLOPS (Quadro M5500). Boost clocks: 902 MHz vs 1165 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,993 | 7,915 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2880+41% | 2048 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.196 TFLOPS+9% | 4.772 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 1165 MHz+29% |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 240+88% | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 768 KB+220% |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M5500 has 8 GB. The Quadro K6000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Quadro K6000) vs 2 MB (Quadro M5500) — the Quadro M5500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+50% | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 2 MB+33% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (Quadro K6000) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M5500). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12 (12_1)+9% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.2+9% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (Quadro K6000) vs NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M5500). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs NVDEC (Maxwell). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Quadro K6000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro M5500).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1.0 | NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | NVDEC (Maxwell) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K6000 draws 225W versus the Quadro M5500's 150W — a 40% difference. The Quadro M5500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K6000) vs 350W (Quadro M5500). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 265mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 150W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 265mm | 0mm |
| Height | 110mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 35.5 | 52.8+49% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K6000 launched at $5265 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the Quadro M5500 launched at $800 and now averages $200. The Quadro M5500 costs 33.3% less ($100 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 26.6 (Quadro K6000) vs 39.6 (Quadro M5500) — the Quadro M5500 offers 48.9% better value. The Quadro M5500 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5265 | $800-85% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $200-33% |
| Performance per Dollar | 26.6 | 39.6+49% |
| Codename | GK110B | GM204 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | April 8 2016 |
| Ranking | #318 | #321 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K6000 and Quadro M5500
