NVIDIA
GeForce GT 230 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GT 230 and Quadro P6000 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗GT 230 outperforms Quadro P6000 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce GT 230 (~10%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider GT 230
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Quadro P6000
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL · No dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3959
10079
10027
13100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 221–226of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce GT 230
171 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
39
59Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34
49Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
32
46Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
79
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
57Better
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Launch price—
Memory frequency—
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidth—
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
Shader units / coresBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache—
Clock speed—
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Device class
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Length
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumption—
Memory type
Power connector
VRAMBetter
Transistor countBetter
Vulkan
DisplayPort
HDMI
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares GT 230 and Quadro P6000 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
GT 230Quadro P6000
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
196 FPS
—
1080p Ultra
138 FPS
—
1440p Ultra
77 FPS
—
4K Ultra
29 FPS
—
Counter-Strike 2GT 230196 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 230138 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23077 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23029 FPSQuadro P6000—
Cyberpunk 2077GT 230126 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 230109 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23056 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23020 FPSQuadro P6000—
Forza Horizon 5GT 230159 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 230103 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23069 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23043 FPSQuadro P6000—
Hogwarts LegacyGT 230103 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23086 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23050 FPSQuadro P6000—GT 23020 FPSQuadro P6000—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100395941%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100326568%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100327075%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10013100154%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001007923%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100277796%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100287591%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100327075%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 1002482109%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100317178%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012 (feature level 12_1)
VulkanNot supportedVulkan 1.3
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedNo dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.1CUDA / OpenCL
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaPascal
Process node55 nm16 nmBetter
Release date20092016
Device classDesktopProf
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count505 million11.8 billionBetter
Die size196 mm²Better471 mm²
Shader units / cores483840 CUDA coresBetter
Base clock650 MHz1506 MHzBetter
Boost clock650 MHz1645 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 3.0 x16
LengthVaries by board267 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU250 WBetter600 W
Power connectorNone1× 8-pin PCIe
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependent0 native (DisplayPort adapter supported)
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.4
USB Type-CNoNot supported
Max monitorsVaries by board4 simultaneous displays
Max resolutionVaries by board7680×4320 at 30 Hz via DisplayPort 1.4
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB GDDR3Better24 GB
Memory typeGDDR3GDDR5X
Memory bus256 bit384-bitBetter
TFLOPS0.15612.0Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 0 / 64
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: GT 230 or Quadro P6000?+
GT 230 has the higher overall gaming score, while GT 230 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GT 230 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GT 230 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
GT 230 offers more overall performance, while GT 230 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GT 230 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
GT 230 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
GT 230 leads in combined 1440p performance. GT 230 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
GT 230 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GT 230 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
GT 230 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to GT 230 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.