AMD Radeon 880M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9,846, while the AMD Radeon 880M averages 8,436. The Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, and the Radeon 880M is at the 43rd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon 880M scores 31,285 versus 9,846 for the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, a 68.5% margin in favor of the AMD part. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (score 9,832, 0.1% behind), AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% behind), GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% behind), and GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 1.1% ahead).

Q: What are the closest rivals to the AMD Radeon 880M?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (8,427, 0.1% behind), GeForce MX330 (8,458, 0.3% ahead), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 0.3% ahead), and AMD Radeon R9 M375X (8,325, 1.3% behind).

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is end-of-life, while the AMD Radeon 880M is listed as active production.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 880M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is built on the GF100 chip using the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The AMD Radeon 880M uses the Strix Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture, fabbed on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, for a density of 145.9 million per mm². That density difference is enormous: the Radeon 880M crams over 24 times more transistors per square millimeter than the Fermi part.

The Quadro 6000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi generation and is the x000-tier product. Its predecessor was the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler. The Radeon 880M comes from the Navi III IGP generation for Strix Point Mobile, succeeding the Navi II IGP, and has no recorded successor.

Shader resources differ substantially. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon 880M has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The AMD part also includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Fermi design, which has no ray tracing hardware. Neither GPU lists tensor cores.

Clock behavior is also distinct. The Quadro 6000 has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 747 MHz, translating to 3 Gbps effective. The Radeon 880M has a 400 MHz base clock and a 2900 MHz boost clock, with system-shared memory clocking. The Radeon's boost clock is a major advantage for compute workloads that scale with frequency.

The process and feature gap shows in API support. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan listed. The Radeon 880M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RDNA 3.5 part also has a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio, while the Quadro lists no FP16 capability.

Power and physical design are polar opposites. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card with a 204 W TDP, requiring a 550 W power supply and using one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. It measures 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon 880M is an integrated graphics processor with a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and no standalone dimensions. It connects over PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the AMD Radeon 880M scores 31,285 against 9,846 for the NVIDIA Quadro 6000. The margin is 68.5% in favor of the Radeon 880M, which is a decisive victory for the integrated part.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret this result. The Quadro 6000's OpenCL score of 9,846 places it just above the Quadro M2000M (9,832) and FirePro W5000 (9,803), and just below the GeForce GTX 870M (9,959). It is essentially a peer of those mid-range mobile and workstation parts. The Radeon 880M's 31,285 OpenCL score, by contrast, is over three times the Quadro's result and far outside the range of its own nearest rivals, which cluster around 8,300 to 8,460. None of the Radeon 880M's closest competitors come anywhere near its OpenCL figure, so this is a workload where the RDNA 3.5 architecture clearly excels.

The Radeon 880M has a broader benchmark portfolio in the database, with results in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (535), Geekbench Vulkan (40,006), Passmark DirectX 10 (31), DirectX 11 (73), DirectX 12 (32), DirectX 9 (97), G2D (969), G3D (7,615), and GPU Compute (3,719). The Quadro 6000 only has the single OpenCL entry. The Vulkan score of 40,006 is particularly notable, since the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed at all. The Radeon 880M's Passmark G3D score of 7,615 also shows a solid DirectX-era rasterization result, even though its low-end DirectX 9 and 10 numbers (97 and 31) suggest varying API performance.

The wins tally reflects this imbalance. The Radeon 880M records one win in the head-to-head set, and the Quadro 6000 has zero. All of the recorded benchmark evidence points in one direction, though it is limited to a single shared test.

The Verdict

The data favors the AMD Radeon 880M in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 31,285 is 68.5% higher than the Quadro 6000's 9,846, and it also offers modern API support including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate, plus 12 ray tracing cores. The Quadro 6000 lacks Vulkan entirely and has no ray tracing hardware. For any workload that uses OpenCL, Vulkan, or DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the Radeon 880M is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Quadro 6000 does have advantages in specific areas, but not in compute throughput. It has a dedicated 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Radeon 880M depends on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. That fixed memory pool could matter in scenarios where dedicated VRAM is required, though the benchmark data does not test such workloads directly. The Quadro also has more ROPs, 48 versus 16, and a higher average benchmark score of 9,846 versus 8,436, which reflects its position among peers. It sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the Radeon 880M's 43rd percentile.

The production status is a deciding factor for new purchases. The Quadro 6000 is end-of-life, while the Radeon 880M is active. The Quadro is also a 204 W dual-slot card from the Fermi era, while the Radeon 880M is a 15 W integrated processor with no power connectors. For a modern system, the Radeon 880M offers far better performance per watt on paper, runs in any portable device, and supports current graphics APIs. The Quadro 6000 remains relevant only for legacy workstation setups needing its dedicated memory configuration and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Users who need the highest OpenCL throughput, ray tracing, or Vulkan support should pick the AMD Radeon 880M. Users constrained to an older Fermi-era workstation environment, or who require a dedicated 6 GB frame buffer with a 384-bit bus, may still consider the Quadro 6000, provided the workload fits its limited API scope. The benchmark record, however, is unambiguous: the Radeon 880M wins the only head-to-head test by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | AMD Radeon 880M |

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

| Chip | GF100 | Strix Point |

| Architecture | Fermi | RDNA 3.5 |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi (x000) | Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) |

| Process node | 40 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 34,000 million |

| Die size | 529 mm² | 233 mm² |

| Transistor density | 5.9M / mm² | 145.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | Not listed | 400 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not listed | 2900 MHz |

| Memory clock | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | System Shared |

| Memory size | 6 GB GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory bus width | 384 bit | System Shared |

| Memory bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading units | 448 | 768 |

| TMUs | 56 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Ray tracing cores | Not listed | 12 |

| FP32 | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 4.454 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 46.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 139.2 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 204 W | 15 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not listed |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 248 mm x 111 mm | Not listed |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | Not listed |