Quadro M6000 vs Arc A770M
Quadro M6000
Popular choices:
Arc A770M
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000
Performance Per Dollar Arc A770M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Arc A770M is significantly newer (2022 vs 2015). The Arc A770M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Arc A770M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score and 33.3% more VRAM (16 GB vs 12 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro M6000.
| Insight | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) / 6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (16 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Arc A770M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 M6000 and Arc A770M
Quadro M6000
The Quadro M6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 21 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 988 MHz to 1114 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,769 points. Launch price was $4,199.99.
Arc A770M
The Arc A770M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2022. It features the Generation 12.7 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1650 MHz to 2050 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 120W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 32 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,853 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M6000 scores 11,769 and the Arc A770M reaches 11,853 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M6000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the Arc A770M uses Generation 12.7, both on 28 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (Quadro M6000) vs 4,096 (Arc A770M). Raw compute: 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000) vs 16.79 TFLOPS (Arc A770M). Boost clocks: 1114 MHz vs 2050 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,769 | 11,853 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Generation 12.7 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072 | 4096+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.844 TFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS+145% |
| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 2050 MHz+84% |
| ROPs | 96 | 128+33% |
| TMUs | 192 | 256+33% |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 6 MB+445% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 16 MB+433% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | XeSS |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro M6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the Arc A770M has 16 GB. The Arc A770M offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 317 GB/s (Quadro M6000) vs 512 GB/s (Arc A770M) — a 61.5% advantage for the Arc A770M. Bus width: 384-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Quadro M6000) vs 16 MB (Arc A770M) — the Arc A770M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB | 16 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 317 GB/s | 512 GB/s+62% |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+50% | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 16 MB+433% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12/1 (Quadro M6000) vs 12.2 (Arc A770M). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12/1 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000) vs Xe Media Engine (Arc A770M). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs Xe Media Engine. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 (Arc A770M).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | Xe Media Engine |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | Xe Media Engine |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | H.264,H.265,VP9,AV1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M6000 draws 250W versus the Arc A770M's 120W — a 70.3% difference. The Arc A770M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro M6000) vs 500W (Arc A770M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 120W-52% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 0mm |
| Height | 112mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 47.1 | 98.8+110% |
Value Analysis
The Arc A770M is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | Arc A770M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4999 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | — |
| Codename | GM200 | DG2-512 |
| Release | March 21 2015 | 2022 |
| Ranking | #228 | #225 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M6000 and Arc A770M
