Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design vs Quadro K6000
Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
Popular choices:
Quadro K6000
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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank 150 and the Quadro K6000 is on rank 319, so the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K6000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K6000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) |
| Longevity | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (265mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design 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 RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design and Quadro K6000
Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 600 MHz to 1215 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 60W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 36 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,119 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design scores 8,119 and the Quadro K6000 reaches 7,993 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is built on Turing while the Quadro K6000 uses Kepler, both on 12 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 2,880 (Quadro K6000). Raw compute: 5.599 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 5.196 TFLOPS (Quadro K6000). Boost clocks: 1215 MHz vs 902 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,119+2% | 7,993 |
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304 | 2880+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.599 TFLOPS+8% | 5.196 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1215 MHz+35% | 902 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+33% | 48 |
| TMUs | 144 | 240+67% |
| L1 Cache | 2.3 MB+900% | 0.23 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+167% | 1.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The Quadro K6000 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 2.0 | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K6000 has 12 GB. The Quadro K6000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 1.5 MB (Quadro K6000) — the Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 12 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+167% | 1.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 11.0 (Quadro K6000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate+9% | 11.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+18% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 7th Gen (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC 1.0 (Quadro K6000). Decoder: NVDEC 4th Gen vs PureVideo HD VP5. Supported codecs: H.265,H.264 (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs MPEG-2,H.264 (Quadro K6000).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 7th Gen | NVENC 1.0 |
| Decoder | NVDEC 4th Gen | PureVideo HD VP5 |
| Codecs | H.265,H.264 | MPEG-2,H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design draws 60W versus the Quadro K6000's 225W — a 115.8% difference. The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design) vs 350W (Quadro K6000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 265mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: Unknown vs 80°C.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 60W-73% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 350W-30% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 265mm |
| Height | 0mm | 110mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | Unknown-100% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 135.3+281% | 35.5 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design | Quadro K6000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $5265 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $300 |
| Codename | TU106 | GK110B |
| Release | May 27 2019 | July 23 2013 |
| Ranking | #313 | #318 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro RTX 3000 with Max-Q Design and Quadro K6000
