GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and AMD Radeon 8050S represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw benchmark scores, but the story is far more nuanced when you look at the specific workloads and the physical realities of each card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P6000 scores 66,382 against the Radeon 8050S's 65,818, a narrow victory of just 0.9%. This is a marginal win that suggests the two are nearly identical in this compute-heavy workload, despite their vast generational differences.

The Vulkan test tells a completely different story. Here, the Quadro P6000 delivers a commanding 73,590 score, while the Radeon 8050S manages only 58,398. That represents a substantial 26% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is not a small gap; it is a decisive margin that indicates the Pascal architecture's strengths in graphics API workloads remain potent even against a much newer RDNA 3.5 design. The data shows the P6000 winning both head-to-head tests, giving it a clean 2-0 record.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro P6000's average benchmark score is 69,986, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon 8050S, with an average score of 62,108, sits at the 89th percentile. While the percentile difference is only one point, the raw score difference of roughly 7,878 points is significant. The P6000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140, 0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, 0.2% behind), showing it sits comfortably in a competitive mid-to-high tier. The Radeon 8050S, by contrast, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 (63,693, 2.5% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775, 2.6% ahead), indicating it is slightly below those established performers.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 wins decisively in graphics API performance, as evidenced by its 26% Vulkan lead. This suggests it is the stronger choice for applications that leverage Vulkan's low-overhead access to the GPU, such as modern game engines, CAD viewports, and certain scientific visualization tools. Its OpenCL performance is also slightly better, making it the more balanced compute performer in these two specific tests.

The Radeon 8050S, while losing both benchmarks, is not without its own domain of superiority. Its defining characteristic is its power efficiency and form factor. With a TDP of just 55 W compared to the P6000's 250 W, the Radeon 8050S achieves nearly 99% of the P6000's OpenCL score while consuming a fraction of the power. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it requires no power connectors and is designed for portable devices. This makes it the clear winner for any scenario where physical space, power draw, and thermals are the primary constraints, think thin-and-light laptops or compact systems where a dual-slot, 250 W card is simply not an option.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has a higher average benchmark score of 69,986, compared to the AMD Radeon 8050S's 62,108.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro P6000 outperforms the Radeon 8050S by 26% in the Geekbench Vulkan test, with scores of 73,590 and 58,398 respectively.

Q: Are the two GPUs comparable in OpenCL performance?

A: Yes, they are very close. The Quadro P6000 wins by only 0.9% in OpenCL, scoring 66,382 versus the Radeon 8050S's 65,818.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S has a TDP of 55 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU is more recent?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S was released on 2025-01-05, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 was released on 2016-09-30.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the Radeon 8050S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ fundamentally in nearly every core specification. The Quadro P6000 is built on a 16 nm process at TSMC, packing 11,800 million transistors onto a 471 mm² die. The Radeon 8050S uses a more advanced 4 nm process at the same foundry, but its die is smaller at 308 mm² and its transistor count is listed as unknown.

Clock speeds also differ markedly. The P6000 has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The Radeon 8050S has a lower base clock of 1295 MHz but a much higher boost clock of 2800 MHz, indicating a wider dynamic range for power management. Memory configurations are entirely distinct: the P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon 8050S relies on System Shared memory with a System Dependent bandwidth. The P6000's memory clock is 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective).

Compute unit counts differ as well. The Quadro P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon 8050S has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but it adds 32 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate is similar, with the Radeon 8050S slightly ahead at 179.2 GPixel/s versus 157.9 GPixel/s for the P6000. Texture rate favors the P6000 at 394.8 GTexel/s versus 358.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is close, with the P6000 at 12.63 TFLOPS and the Radeon 8050S at 11.47 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows a massive divergence: the P6000 delivers only 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Radeon 8050S achieves 11.47 TFLOPS (1:1).

The physical and power profiles are opposites. The P6000 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The Radeon 8050S is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, designed to be integrated into a portable device. The P6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon 8050S uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the P6000, whereas the Radeon 8050S's outputs are described as Portable Device Dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The Quadro P6000 is based on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. Its predecessor was Quadro Maxwell, and its successor is Quadro Volta. It is an end-of-life product. The Radeon 8050S is built on AMD's RDNA 3.5 architecture, using the Strix Halo chip, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 8000M) generation. Its predecessor is Polaris Mobile, and it has no listed successor. It is an active production product.

The manufacturing process is a major differentiator, with the P6000 at 16 nm and the Radeon 8050S at 4 nm. This translates into the Radeon's dramatically lower power envelope. The Radeon 8050S includes 32 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pascal-based P6000. The FP16 compute capability is also a stark contrast: the Radeon 8050S has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, making it far more capable for workloads that leverage half-precision math, while the P6000's FP16 is heavily de-emphasized at a 1:64 ratio. The Radeon 8050S also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a more modern API feature set than the P6000's DirectX 12 (12_1).

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision based on context. For anyone needing maximum raw graphics performance in a desktop workstation, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the clear choice. Its 26% Vulkan lead and higher average benchmark score make it the superior performer in the tests recorded. It is also the only one of the two with a dedicated 24 GB frame buffer, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 90th percentile ranking against all GPUs, and its positioning near the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, confirm it remains a relevant high-end option even though it is end-of-life.

For anyone building or specifying a mobile or ultra-compact system, the AMD Radeon 8050S is the only viable choice from this pair. Its 55 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors mean it can fit into devices where the P6000 physically cannot. While it loses on raw performance, its OpenCL score is within 0.9% of the P6000, suggesting that in power-constrained environments, the efficiency trade-off is minimal. Its 89th percentile ranking and close competition with the Radeon Pro Vega 56 and RX 7600M indicate it is a solid mid-range mobile performer. The choice is not about which is "better," but about which is better suited to the intended environment and workload.