GPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two very different GPUs, and the split is not what you might expect from a desktop workstation card versus an integrated processor. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 takes the OpenCL workload decisively, while the AMD Radeon 780M counters in Vulkan. That is the entire head-to-head picture: one win apiece, with the margins being the real story.

If your work leans on OpenCL, think compute-heavy tasks, rendering pipelines, or scientific workloads that still use that API, the Quadro K6000 is the stronger part. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 23,749 beats the Radeon 780M’s 18,602 by 27.7%. That is a substantial gap, not a rounding error. The K6000’s architecture was built for professional compute, and the numbers reflect that.

Flip to Vulkan, and the situation reverses. The Radeon 780M scores 33,683 in Geekbench Vulkan, against the Quadro K6000’s 25,409. That is a 24.6% advantage for AMD. Vulkan is the more modern API here, and the RDNA 3.0 architecture clearly handles it better. For gaming emulation, modern game engines, or any workload that has moved to Vulkan, the 780M is the one you want.

The overall average benchmark scores tell a similar but slightly different story. The Quadro K6000 posts an average of 19,030 across its three benchmark runs, placing it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon 780M averages 17,588, at the 61st percentile. The K6000 edges ahead on average, but the 780M’s Vulkan strength means it will feel faster in the right applications. Neither card dominates the other outright, it is a genuine trade-off based on software.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs are separated by more than a decade of silicon evolution, and the architecture differences explain almost everything about their performance profiles.

The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip, built on Kepler architecture at TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. That is a massive, power-hungry chip by today’s standards, with a 225 W TDP and a dual-slot cooler requiring two 6-pin power connectors. The Radeon 780M, meanwhile, uses the Phoenix chip on RDNA 3.0 at TSMC’s 4 nm node. It crams 25,390 million transistors onto just 178 mm², a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. That is over 11 times denser, and the 780M sips power at just 15 W with no power connectors at all.

The memory setup is fundamentally different. The K6000 has 12 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 780M uses system shared memory, no dedicated VRAM, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. For workloads that hammer memory bandwidth, the K6000 has a clear structural advantage. For anything that benefits from unified memory access, the 780M’s approach is more flexible.

Compute resources tell a similar story of different priorities. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The 780M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, far fewer in raw count. But the 780M also has 12 ray tracing cores, something the K6000 lacks entirely. The 780M’s boost clock of 2,900 MHz dwarfs the K6000’s 902 MHz boost, which helps explain how fewer cores can still produce competitive or better results in modern APIs. The pixel rate favors the 780M at 92.80 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s, while the K6000 wins texture rate at 216.5 GTexel/s against 139.2 GTexel/s.

API support is another generational gap. The K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The 780M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. That Vulkan version difference is likely a major reason for the 780M’s Vulkan benchmark victory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head tests available paint a clear picture of strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 against the Radeon 780M’s 18,602. That is a 27.7% lead for NVIDIA. The K6000’s massive shading unit count, high memory bandwidth, and dedicated VRAM make it a brute-force compute winner. This is the kind of result you would expect from a workstation card that was designed to chew through professional workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn completely. The Radeon 780M scores 33,683, while the Quadro K6000 manages 25,409. The 24.6% margin in AMD’s favor is almost as large as the K6000’s OpenCL lead. What makes this interesting is that the 780M achieves this with far fewer shading units, 768 versus 2,880, but with a much newer architecture, a far higher boost clock, and ray tracing cores. The Vulkan API clearly plays to RDNA 3.0’s strengths, and the 780M’s modern feature set shows up where it matters.

The average benchmark scores place these cards close together. The K6000 averages 19,030, which sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile’s 19,049, and essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036. The 780M averages 17,588, within 0.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060’s 17,639. Both cards are competitive with much newer discrete GPUs in their respective neighborhoods, which speaks to how well they age in different ways.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 23,749, beating the AMD Radeon 780M’s 18,602 by 27.7%.

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 33,683, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K6000’s 25,409 by 24.6%.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 across its benchmarks, placing at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon 780M averages 17,588, at the 61st percentile. The K6000 is ahead by roughly 8% on average.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors. The Radeon 780M has a TDP of just 15 W and needs no power connectors, it is an integrated GPU.

Q: Does the Radeon 780M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the 780M includes 12 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K6000 has no ray tracing cores at all.

Q: What are their closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The K6000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (0.1% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (0% delta). The 780M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 560 at 17,551 (0.2% higher), with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 at 17,639 (0.3% lower).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision. Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 if your priority is raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 27.7% lead in that benchmark, combined with 12 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy professional workloads that still rely on OpenCL. The 63rd percentile ranking and an average score of 19,030 put it slightly ahead of the newer integrated part overall.

Pick the AMD Radeon 780M if your work or play has moved to Vulkan. Its 24.6% advantage in that benchmark is decisive, and it brings modern features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support that the K6000 simply does not have. The 15 W power draw is another massive practical advantage, no power connectors, no dual-slot cooler, no 550 W power supply suggestion. It is built for efficiency and modern APIs.

The honest assessment is that these are different tools for different jobs. The K6000 is an end-of-life workstation card from 2013 with a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, built for a specific era of professional compute. The 780M is an active, current integrated GPU from 2024, designed for efficiency and modern rendering APIs. If you can use Vulkan, the 780M is the better buy. If you are locked into OpenCL, the K6000’s raw compute power still holds up.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 | AMD Radeon 780M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 25,390 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 178 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 142.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 800 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 768 |

| TMUs | 240 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 54.12 GPixel/s | 92.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 216.5 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.196 TFLOPS | 8.909 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 8.909 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2024-01-30 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,265 USD | Not listed |