AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 450 and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two very different eras of professional GPU design, with the former built on modern 14nm GCN architecture for mobile workstations and the latter a 40nm Fermi-generation behemoth designed for stationary deskside use. The benchmark data, however, reveals a surprisingly narrow performance gap between these two end-of-life products, with the older, larger card edging ahead in the one shared test while the newer part counters with superior API support and dramatically lower power requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 winning by a margin of 8.6%. The Quadro 6000 scores 9846 points against the Radeon Pro 450's 9002 points. This is a meaningful but not overwhelming victory for the older card, especially considering that the Quadro 6000 draws nearly six times the power to achieve it. The Radeon Pro 450's average benchmark score across all tested workloads stands at 10804, which is actually higher than the Quadro 6000's average of 9846, suggesting that the AMD card performs better in non-OpenCL tests like Metal and Vulkan.

Looking at the Radeon Pro 450's individual results, it scores 12893 in Geekbench Metal and 10518 in Geekbench Vulkan, both substantially higher than its OpenCL result. These additional tests highlight the AMD card's versatility with modern compute APIs, a capability the Quadro 6000 simply does not possess. The Quadro 6000's only benchmark result is its OpenCL score, and it lacks Vulkan support entirely in the data provided.

The Radeon Pro 450 sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile. This narrow two-percentile gap in overall standing reinforces the head-to-head result: these are closely matched cards in raw compute terms, despite their vastly different architectures and release dates. The AMD card's nearest rival in average score is the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 at 10883, a 0.7% difference, while the Quadro 6000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9959, a 1.1% gap.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 9846, beating the AMD Radeon Pro 450's 9002 by 8.6%. This is the only shared benchmark test between the two cards.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 450 support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W, while the Quadro 6000 draws 204 W. The Quadro 6000 also requires a 550 W suggested PSU and dual power connectors, whereas the Radeon Pro 450 uses an MXM module with no separate power connectors listed.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon Pro 450 is an MXM module with dimensions listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs, indicating it is designed for laptop form factors.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare in raw FP32?

A: They are nearly identical in FP32 performance: the Radeon Pro 450 delivers 1,024.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 6000 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The AMD card also offers FP16 at 1,024.0 GFLOPS, which the Quadro 6000 lacks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is stark and defines their respective strengths. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This modern node packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The Quadro 6000, by contrast, uses the GF100 chip on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, built on TSMC's 40 nm process. It contains 3,100 million transistors—only slightly more than the AMD chip—but spread across a massive 529 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 5.9 million transistors per mm².

The Radeon Pro 450 features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 6000 achieves nearly identical FP32 performance (1,027.7 GFLOPS vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS) thanks to its higher clock speeds. The AMD card's pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 16.07 GPixel/s, while texture rates are almost identical at 32.00 GTexel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s respectively.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally: the Radeon Pro 450 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), delivering 81.28 GB/s. The Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit bus with 6 GB GDDR5 at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), delivering 143.4 GB/s—76% more bandwidth. The AMD card supports FP16 compute at 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Quadro has no FP16 capability listed. The Radeon Pro 450 also supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 6000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 interface.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially across nearly every specification category. The Radeon Pro 450 was released on 2016-10-29, nearly six years after the Quadro 6000's 2010-12-09 release. The AMD card uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries; the NVIDIA card uses 40 nm at TSMC. Transistor counts are nearly equal (3,000 vs 3,100 million), but die size differs dramatically: 123 mm² versus 529 mm².

Memory capacity and bandwidth both favor the Quadro 6000: 6 GB versus 2 GB, and 143.4 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. The bus width difference is equally pronounced at 384-bit versus 128-bit. However, the Radeon Pro 450 has more shading units (640 vs 448) and fewer TMUs (40 vs 56) and ROPs (16 vs 48). Power consumption heavily favors the AMD card at 35 W versus 204 W. The form factors are completely different: MXM Module versus dual-slot PCIe card. The Quadro 6000 requires 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU; the Radeon Pro 450 lists no separate power requirements.

API support differences show the AMD card's modern advantage: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.3 versus no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 6000's display outputs are 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the Radeon Pro 450's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD; no launch MSRP is listed for the Radeon Pro 450. The Quadro 6000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler, while no predecessor or successor is listed for the Radeon Pro 450.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, posting an 8.6% advantage in OpenCL performance. It also offers three times the memory capacity (6 GB vs 2 GB) with 76% more bandwidth, which could be decisive for large datasets in professional workloads. Its 48 ROPs and higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 12.80 GPixel/s) suggest stronger fill-rate-bound performance. However, this performance comes at an enormous cost in power: 204 W versus 35 W, requiring a 550 W PSU and dual power connectors versus an MXM module with no separate power requirements.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 counters with superior modern API support, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0, while the Quadro 6000 is limited to DirectX 11_0 and lacks Vulkan entirely. The AMD card's higher average benchmark score (10804 vs 9846) and higher percentile ranking (49th vs 47th) indicate it performs better across a broader range of workloads, including Metal and Vulkan tests where the Quadro 6000 has no data. The Radeon Pro 450 also matches the Quadro 6000 in raw FP32 compute (1,024.0 vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) while adding FP16 support.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, maximum memory capacity, and legacy workstation compatibility, the Quadro 6000 remains the data-backed choice. For those needing modern API support, power efficiency, and a mobile form factor, the Radeon Pro 450 is clearly superior. The nearly identical FP32 performance and the AMD card's higher average benchmark score suggest that in most contemporary workloads, the Radeon Pro 450 will deliver comparable or better results while consuming 83% less power. The Quadro 6000's 4,399 USD launch MSRP also reflects its professional workstation positioning, though both cards are now end-of-life products. The deciding factor should be workload requirements: memory-hungry legacy applications favor the Quadro 6000, while modern API usage and portability favor the Radeon Pro 450.