AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two cards primarily by age and workload profile. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 holds a single benchmark win against the AMD Radeon 550X in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 9,846 versus 8,866, a margin of 11.1%. That win places the Quadro 6000 at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 550X sits at the 45th percentile. The Quadro 6000 is the pick for anyone relying on OpenCL compute tasks where raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth matter, given its 1,027.7 GFLOPS and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 550X, however, counters with a much lower power draw of 50 W versus 204 W, making it the sensible choice for compact or power-constrained systems where the 11.1% performance gap is acceptable. The Radeon also brings Vulkan support, which the Quadro lacks entirely, so any workload using that API favors AMD. Neither card is in production; both are end-of-life, but the Radeon 550X is newer, released in March 2019, while the Quadro dates to December 2010. The data suggests the Quadro 6000 wins on raw compute, but the Radeon 550X wins on efficiency and modern API coverage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The Quadro 6000 uses NVIDIA’s GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture at TSMC’s 40 nm process, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die. The Radeon 550X uses AMD’s Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0 at GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story: the Radeon 550X crams 21.4 million transistors per mm², nearly four times the Quadro’s 5.9M per mm². This explains how the Radeon 550X achieves higher FP32 throughput, 1,247.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS, despite having fewer transistors overall.

The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon 550X has more shading units at 512, but fewer TMUs (32) and ROPs (16). The Quadro also runs a wider 384-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB. Memory bandwidth favors the Quadro at 143.4 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s. Clock speeds differ: the Radeon has a base clock of 1082 MHz and boost of 1218 MHz, while the Quadro’s base and boost clocks are not recorded. The Quadro’s memory runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), the Radeon at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

API support diverges sharply. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan entry. The Radeon 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, delivering 1,247.2 GFLOPS in both, while the Quadro has no FP16 listing. Manufacturing differences are stark: the Quadro uses TSMC, the Radeon uses GlobalFoundries. The Radeon’s PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is newer than the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0 x16, though the latter is a wider physical link.

Where Each One Wins

The OpenCL benchmark gives the Quadro 6000 a clear win, 9,846 versus 8,866, a differential of 11.1%. That result suggests the Quadro is stronger in general-purpose compute tasks that rely on OpenCL, likely due to its higher memory bandwidth and larger frame buffer. The Quadro also has a much higher pixel rate at 16.07 GPixel/s and texture rate at 32.14 GTexel/s, though the Radeon actually beats it in both raw rates: 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s. So the Quadro’s advantage is not in fill rates but in memory and parallel compute capacity.

The Radeon 550X wins on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 50 W TDP is 154 W lower than the Quadro’s 204 W, and it requires no power connectors, while the Quadro needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin. The Radeon also has a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 550 W for the Quadro. For any system where power delivery or thermals are limited, the Radeon is the only rational choice. The Radeon’s Vulkan 1.3 support means that any Vulkan-based workload or game will run on it, while the Quadro cannot execute Vulkan at all. For modern software stacks, that is a decisive feature.

The Radeon 550X also has a higher boost clock (1218 MHz vs none recorded for Quadro), and its FP32 output is 21.4% higher than the Quadro’s. If the benchmark were compute-heavy but not memory-bound, the Radeon could plausibly win, though the recorded OpenCL test shows otherwise. The data only gives one head-to-head, so the Radeon’s wins are inferred from its specifications, not from benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance in the recorded OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, which is 11.1% higher than the AMD Radeon 550X’s 8,866 in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 550X support any API the Quadro 6000 does not?

A: Yes, the Radeon 550X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX and OpenGL, and the Radeon’s DirectX version is 12 (12_0) versus the Quadro’s 12 (11_0).

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has 143.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to 112.0 GB/s for the AMD Radeon 550X.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W, while the Radeon 550X draws only 50 W. The Quadro also requires a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, while the Radeon has no power connectors at all.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X delivers 1,247.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is higher than the Quadro 6000’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the cards compare in rasterization rates?

A: The Radeon 550X has a higher pixel rate at 19.49 GPixel/s and texture rate at 38.98 GTexel/s. The Quadro 6000 is lower at 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scored 9,846, and the AMD Radeon 550X scored 8,866. That gives the Quadro a 11.1% advantage. The delta is meaningful but not enormous: the Quadro sits at the 47th percentile, the Radeon at 45th. In the database’s nearest rivals, the Quadro is close to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1% ahead), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% ahead). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, -1.1%). The Radeon 550X, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863, 0.6% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851, 0.8% ahead). It comes behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (9,022, -1.2%) and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037, -1.3%).

The 11.1% gap between the two cards is consistent with their percentile positions, but it is worth remembering the Radeon has a higher FP32 throughput (1,247.2 vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and higher texture and pixel rates. That points to a memory-bound benchmark: the Quadro’s 384-bit bus and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth gave it the edge in OpenCL, despite lower raw shader throughput. The Radeon has 512 shading units to the Quadro’s 448, but the narrower 128-bit bus likely constrained it.

The Radeon 550X also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 8,970, which is 1.2% higher than its own OpenCL score (8,866). That indicates the card performs slightly better under Vulkan, though no Vulkan result exists for the Quadro to compare directly. The Quadro has no Vulkan support at all, so this is a one-sided comparison.

Specification Differences

Process and Die: The Quadro 6000 uses a 40 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 529 mm². The Radeon 550X uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 103 mm².

Transistors: The Quadro has 3,100 million transistors, the Radeon has 2,200 million. Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro and 21.4M per mm² for the Radeon.

Clocks: The Quadro’s memory clock is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the Radeon’s memory is 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The Radeon has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost of 1218 MHz; the Quadro has no base or boost clock recorded.

Memory: The Quadro has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s.

Compute Units: The Quadro has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Rates: The Quadro outputs 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. The Radeon outputs 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s. FP32: 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro, 1,247.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon. The Radeon also has FP16 at 1,247.2 GFLOPS, which the Quadro does not list.

Power: The Quadro has a TDP of 204 W, a dual-slot design, and requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Radeon has a TDP of 50 W, a dual-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Interface: The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Display Outputs: The Quadro has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The Radeon has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

APIs: DirectX 12 (11_0) for the Quadro, 12 (12_0) for the Radeon. OpenGL 4.6 for both. Vulkan: none for the Quadro, 1.3 for the Radeon.

Dimensions: The Quadro is 248 mm (9.8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The Radeon is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long, with no height recorded.

Release and Status: Quadro released December 2011, end-of-life. Radeon released March 2019, end-of-life. The Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla, successor Quadro Kepler. The Radeon’s predecessor is Polaris, successor Vega.

MSRP: The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD. The Radeon 550X has no recorded MSRP.