AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro D300 and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 represent two contrasting approaches to professional graphics from the same era, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process but with vastly different silicon budgets and target markets. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy in the head-to-head benchmarks, with the Quadro K6000 winning both recorded tests, yet the FirePro D300 holds its own in specific metrics and offers a distinctly different feature set that may suit particular workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 23749 against the AMD FirePro D300’s 19515, a delta of -17.8% from the AMD card’s perspective.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 carries 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the AMD FirePro D300 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. This translates to memory bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s for the Quadro versus 162.6 GB/s for the FirePro.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of transistor count and die size?

A: The Quadro K6000’s GK110B chip contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, while the FirePro D300’s Pitcairn chip has 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. The transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD chip at 13.2M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm².

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Quadro K6000?

A: The Quadro K6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD. The FirePro D300 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 achieves 54.12 GPixel/s, nearly double the 27.20 GPixel/s of the AMD FirePro D300. The Quadro’s texture rate of 216.5 GTexel/s also dwarfs the FirePro’s 68.00 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the power consumption specifications for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro D300 has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The FirePro is a single-slot card, whereas the Quadro is dual-slot.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 dominates the two recorded benchmark tests outright. In geekbench_opencl, it scores 23749 versus 19515 for the AMD FirePro D300, a 17.8% advantage. In geekbench_vulkan, the gap widens to 22.2%, with the Quadro posting 25409 against the FirePro’s 19759. For any workload that relies on raw compute throughput or API-level performance in these tests, the Quadro is the clear choice.

The FirePro D300’s wins are not in raw scores but in efficiency and physical footprint. Its 150 W TDP is 33% lower than the Quadro’s 225 W, and it fits in a single slot versus the Quadro’s dual-slot design. The FirePro also offers four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which may be advantageous for multi-display setups that do not require DVI connectivity, whereas the Quadro provides two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. For dense systems where power and space are constrained, the FirePro’s smaller die (212 mm² versus 561 mm²) and lower transistor count (2,800 million versus 7,080 million) make it a more manageable component.

In terms of benchmark percentiles, the FirePro D300 sits at the 64th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K6000 is at the 63rd percentile. The average benchmark score for the FirePro (19637) is actually higher than the Quadro’s (19030), despite losing the head-to-head tests. This suggests the Quadro’s average is pulled down by its geekbench_metal score of 7932, a test the FirePro did not run. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the FirePro’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 at 19602 (0.2% delta), while the Quadro K6000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19036 (0% delta).

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro D300 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Pitcairn chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK110B chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the silicon designs diverge sharply. The FirePro houses 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, whereas the Quadro K6000 packs 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This 2.25x difference in shading units and 3x difference in TMUs explains the Quadro’s compute dominance.

Neither card supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware features. The FirePro’s FP32 throughput is 2.176 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K6000 reaches 5.196 TFLOPS, a 2.4x advantage. The memory subsystems also reflect different design philosophies: the FirePro uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5, while the Quadro uses a 384-bit bus with 12 GB GDDR5. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro’s 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), contributing to its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 162.6 GB/s.

The transistor density slightly favors AMD at 13.2M / mm², but this is a marginal difference given the Quadro’s much larger die. The FirePro’s smaller chip means it can run at a lower TDP, but the Quadro compensates with higher base and boost clocks (797 MHz base, 902 MHz boost) versus the FirePro, which has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock. This suggests the FirePro’s clocks are either variable or not publicly specified, whereas the Quadro’s are fixed in the data.

Specification Differences

The physical and electrical specifications separate these two cards clearly. The FirePro D300 is a single-slot card measuring 242 mm (9.5 inches) in length, while the Quadro K6000 is dual-slot, 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The Quadro requires two 6-pin power connectors; the FirePro has no power connector listed. The suggested PSU differs as well: 450 W for the FirePro versus 550 W for the Quadro.

Memory capacity is the most striking difference: 2 GB versus 12 GB. The bus width scales from 256-bit to 384-bit, and bandwidth from 162.6 GB/s to 288.4 GB/s. The Quadro’s 48 ROPs outperform the FirePro’s 32 ROPs in pixel rate (54.12 GPixel/s versus 27.20 GPixel/s), and its 240 TMUs deliver a texture rate of 216.5 GTexel/s versus 68.00 GTexel/s.

Display outputs differ: the FirePro offers four DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the Quadro provides two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16 and list DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). The Quadro also has a listed launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, while the FirePro has none. The Quadro’s TDP is 225 W versus 150 W for the FirePro, and the production status is end-of-life for both, with the FirePro released in January 2014 and the Quadro in July 2013.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests both favor the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, but the margins differ meaningfully. In geekbench_opencl, the Quadro scores 23749 against the FirePro’s 19515, producing a delta of -17.8% for the AMD card. This is a substantial gap, but not overwhelming; it indicates the FirePro can still execute OpenCL workloads at roughly 82% of the Quadro’s speed. In geekbench_vulkan, the Quadro extends its lead to 25409 versus 19759, a delta of -22.2%. The larger Vulkan margin suggests the Kepler architecture handles this API more efficiently relative to GCN 1.0, or that driver optimization favors NVIDIA in this test.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story. The FirePro D300 averages 19637, which is higher than the Quadro K6000’s 19030. This discrepancy arises because the Quadro also ran geekbench_metal, scoring 7932, which drags its average down. The FirePro did not run a Metal test, so its average reflects only the two OpenCL and Vulkan scores. When comparing nearest rivals, the FirePro’s 19637 average places it just 0.2% above the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 (19602) and 1.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX (19410). The Quadro K6000’s 19030 average sits 0.4% below the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18954) and 0.3% below the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089).

The benchmark results indicate that while the Quadro K6000 wins every direct comparison, the FirePro D300 is not without merit. Its average score exceeds the Quadro’s, and its percentile ranking (64th versus 63rd) is marginally better. For users prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro is the stronger choice. For those needing lower power draw, single-slot installation, or multiple DisplayPort outputs, the FirePro offers a viable alternative that sacrifices performance but gains efficiency and flexibility. The data does not support a single winner; it supports two tools for different jobs.