NVIDIA
GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GTX 950 and Quadro P6000 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗GTX 950 outperforms Quadro P6000 by ~1% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+1%
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
Equal catalog scores
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider GTX 950
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 5.2 · 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
3259
10079
10027
56100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 147–152of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce GTX 950
168 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
32
59Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
29
49Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
27
46Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
79
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
52
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Vulkan
OpenGL
Max monitors
Max resolution
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumption—
Thickness
Memory type
Power connector
Clock speed—
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
DisplayPort
HDMI
Device class
USB Type-C
DirectX
Memory frequency—
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidth—
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Release date
Architecture
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / coresBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
LengthBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache—
Transistor countBetter
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares GTX 950 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.
GTX 950Quadro P6000
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
162 FPS
—
1080p Ultra
112 FPS
—
1440p Ultra
62 FPS
—
4K Ultra
22 FPS
—
Counter-Strike 2GTX 950162 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 950112 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95062 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95022 FPSQuadro P6000—
Cyberpunk 2077GTX 950105 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95089 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95045 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95015 FPSQuadro P6000—
Forza Horizon 5GTX 950132 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95084 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95056 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95032 FPSQuadro P6000—
Hogwarts LegacyGTX 95085 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95070 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95040 FPSQuadro P6000—GTX 95015 FPSQuadro P6000—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100325959%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100376555%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100397057%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1005610056%
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 / 100437757%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100417559%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100397057%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100458258%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100397158%
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
DirectX12.112 (feature level 12_1)
Vulkan1.4Vulkan 1.3
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedNo dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Compute APIOpenCL 3.0, CUDA 5.2CUDA / OpenCL
Architecture and release
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0Pascal
Process node28 nm16 nmBetter
Release date20152016
Device classDesktopProf
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count2940 million11.8 billionBetter
Die size228 mm²Better471 mm²
Shader units / cores7683840 CUDA coresBetter
Base clock1024 MHz1506 MHzBetter
Boost clock1188 MHz1645 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length202 mmBetter267 mm
ThicknessDual-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU250 WBetter600 W
Power connector6 pin1× 8-pin PCIe
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.00 native (DisplayPort adapter supported)
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.2DisplayPort 1.4
USB Type-CNoNot supported
Max monitors54 simultaneous displays
Max resolution7680 × 43207680×4320 at 30 Hz via DisplayPort 1.4
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM2 GB GDDR524 GBBetter
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5X
Memory bus128 bit384-bitBetter
TFLOPS1.82512.0Better
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 (5)
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: GTX 950 or Quadro P6000?+
GTX 950 has the higher overall gaming score, while GTX 950 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GTX 950 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?+
GTX 950 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
GTX 950 offers more overall performance, while GTX 950 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GTX 950 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
GTX 950 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
GTX 950 leads in combined 1440p performance. GTX 950 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
GTX 950 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GTX 950 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?+
GTX 950 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 GTX 950 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.