AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The benchmark data positions the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 as the clear performance leader over the AMD FirePro W7000, winning both head-to-head tests with double-digit margins. However, the AMD card holds its own in specific compute workloads, showing that the choice between these two end-of-life professional GPUs depends heavily on the application and the user's priorities. The K6000's victories are decisive in raw throughput, while the W7000's profile suggests a different set of strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 dominates the direct comparisons. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K6000 scores 23,749 points against the FirePro W7000's 17,808 points, a 25% advantage. This is a substantial gap that reflects the K6000's larger silicon and higher resource counts. The Vulkan results tell a similar story, with the K6000 posting 25,409 points versus 22,001 points for the W7000, a 13.4% lead. The Vulkan margin is narrower than OpenCL, but the NVIDIA card still wins comfortably. These are the only two head-to-head benchmarks available, and the K6000 takes both, giving it a 2-0 record in this comparison.

The magnitude of the OpenCL win is particularly telling. A 25% delta in a compute API like OpenCL indicates that the K6000's architecture is better suited to the parallel workloads that dominate professional rendering and simulation tasks. The Vulkan gap, while smaller, still shows the K6000 maintaining a clear edge. For users running applications that leverage either API, the data consistently favors the NVIDIA product. The FirePro W7000's best showing is in Vulkan, where it narrows the deficit, but it never threatens the K6000's lead.

The Verdict

The data supports the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 as the superior performer for compute-heavy professional workloads. It wins every benchmark in this comparison, with margins ranging from 13.4% to 25%. The K6000's higher average benchmark score of 19,030 points, while slightly lower than the W7000's 19,905 points average, is a statistical artifact of the different test sets. The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the K6000 is faster in both OpenCL and Vulkan. Users who need maximum throughput in GPU-accelerated applications should choose the K6000.

The AMD FirePro W7000 is the choice for users prioritizing a smaller physical footprint and lower system draw. It is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP, while the K6000 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP. The W7000 also requires only a single 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, compared to the K6000's dual 6-pin connectors and 550 W suggested PSU. For workstations with limited space or power budgets, the W7000 is the more practical option, despite its lower performance. The W7000 also offers four DisplayPort outputs versus the K6000's two DVI and two DisplayPort connections, which may be a deciding factor for multi-monitor setups.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is faster, scoring 23,749 points compared to the AMD FirePro W7000's 17,808 points, a 25% difference.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The K6000 leads with 25,409 points versus 22,001 points for the W7000, giving the NVIDIA card a 13.4% advantage in the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 has a higher average score of 19,905 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 points. However, this is based on different benchmark suites and does not reflect the head-to-head results.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 has a TDP of 150 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W. The W7000 also requires a 450 W suggested PSU, whereas the K6000 needs a 550 W unit.

Q: How do the memory sizes compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The K6000 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s for the W7000.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the AMD FirePro W7000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 have a production status of "End-of-life."

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly in core specifications. The AMD FirePro W7000 features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 more than doubles this with 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This resource advantage directly translates to higher theoretical performance: the K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 216.5 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, and 54.12 GPixel/s of pixel rate. The W7000, by comparison, offers 2.432 TFLOPS, 76.00 GTexel/s, and 30.40 GPixel/s.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The W7000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s. Clock speeds show a notable difference: the K6000 has a base clock of 797 MHz and a boost clock of 902 MHz, while the W7000's core clocks are not listed in the data. The W7000's memory runs at 4.8 Gbps effective, while the K6000's memory runs at 6 Gbps effective.

The physical and power profiles are also distinct. The W7000 is a single-slot card measuring 242 mm in length, while the K6000 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm. Both have the same 111 mm height. The W7000 requires a single 6-pin power connector and a 450 W PSU, while the K6000 needs two 6-pin connectors and a 550 W PSU. Display outputs differ as well: the W7000 has four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the K6000 offers two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is between AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 and NVIDIA's Kepler. The FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, for a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 7,080 million transistors in a 561 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 12.6 million per mm². The K6000's larger die and transistor count are the primary drivers of its higher performance.

The generations differ as well. The W7000 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) family, succeeding the FirePro Terascale line and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris. The K6000 is part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, following Quadro Fermi and leading to Quadro Maxwell. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and PCIe 3.0 x16. The Vulkan support differs slightly, with the W7000 supporting version 1.2.170 and the K6000 supporting version 1.2.175. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 support.

The memory architectures reflect the different design philosophies. The W7000's 256-bit bus and 4 GB capacity target mainstream professional workloads, while the K6000's 384-bit bus and 12 GB capacity aim at high-end visualization and compute tasks. The K6000's effective memory speed of 6 Gbps is also higher than the W7000's 4.8 Gbps, contributing to its 87% bandwidth advantage. These architectural differences explain the consistent performance gap seen in the benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins in every direct benchmark comparison. Its strengths lie in raw compute throughput, as evidenced by the 25% OpenCL victory and the 13.4% Vulkan win. The card's 2,880 shading units and 5.196 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it the choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, and data processing. The 12 GB memory capacity also makes it suitable for large datasets that exceed the W7000's 4 GB limit. Users running memory-intensive applications will find the K6000's 288.4 GB/s bandwidth a significant advantage.

The AMD FirePro W7000 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but its profile suits different scenarios. Its single-slot design and 150 W TDP make it the better fit for compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery. The four DisplayPort outputs allow for more flexible multi-display configurations than the K6000's two DVI and two DisplayPort setup. For users whose workloads are not heavily GPU-bound or who prioritize a smaller physical footprint, the W7000's lower power draw and space requirements are practical benefits. The W7000 also has a higher average benchmark score of 19,905 points, though this is based on a different test set and does not offset its losses in head-to-head tests. The K6000 is the performance winner; the W7000 wins on efficiency and form factor.