AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M records an average benchmark score of 11,528, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. The Radeon Pro 5500M sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, with the Quadro 6000 at the 47th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the only benchmark where both were tested?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088 versus the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846. That is a delta of 215.7%, with the AMD card winning the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is built on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses TSMC's 40 nm process. The Radeon Pro 5500M also packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, versus 3,100 million on a 529 mm² die for the Quadro 6000.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has a TDP of 85 W and requires no external power connectors. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W, uses a 6-pin plus an 8-pin power connector, and recommends a 550 W power supply.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two products?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 was released on 2010-12-09, and the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M followed on 2019-11-12. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture with the GF100 chip. This is a generational gap of nearly a decade in design philosophy. RDNA 1.0 is a gaming-first architecture that prioritizes high clock speeds and efficiency, whereas Fermi was NVIDIA's compute-oriented architecture for professional workloads of its era.

The manufacturing process tells a stark story. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses TSMC's 7 nm process, while the Quadro 6000 uses 40 nm. Transistor density reflects this: the AMD chip packs 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, compared to just 5.9 million for the NVIDIA chip. The Radeon Pro 5500M has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million on a much larger 529 mm² die.

Shader resources differ substantially. The Radeon Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer ROPs, the AMD card achieves a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. Texture rate also favors AMD: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s.

Compute capability shows a similar pattern. The Radeon Pro 5500M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 8.909 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro 6000 provides 1,027.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs as well. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. The AMD card's memory runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA card's memory runs at 747 MHz with 3 Gbps effective speed. Bandwidth favors AMD at 192.0 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s.

API support varies. The Radeon Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M for anyone comparing these two specific cards. The average benchmark score of 11,528 versus 9,846 puts AMD ahead by roughly 17%. More tellingly, the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a 215.7% advantage for the Radeon Pro 5500M.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is the clear choice for modern workloads. Its 7 nm process, GDDR6 memory, and support for Vulkan 1.4 make it relevant to current software ecosystems. The Quadro 6000, with its 40 nm process, GDDR5 memory, and no Vulkan support, is a legacy product that cannot keep pace in compute-heavy tasks.

However, the Quadro 6000 has one practical advantage: its 384-bit memory bus and 48 ROPs suggest a different memory layout, though the actual bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s is lower than the AMD card's 192.0 GB/s. The Quadro 6000 also has a larger physical footprint at 248 mm in length and a dual-slot design, which may matter in space-constrained systems.

For a professional workstation user facing these two options, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the stronger performer in every measured category. The Quadro 6000's higher TDP of 204 W versus 85 W, combined with its lower scores, makes it difficult to recommend outside of legacy compatibility scenarios. The database records one win for AMD and zero for NVIDIA in head-to-head testing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | Navi 14 | GF100 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 747 MHz, 3 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,536 | 448 |

| TMUs | 96 | 56 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 4.454 TFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | None listed |

| TDP | 85 W | 204 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | None |

| Physical Dimensions | Not listed | 248 mm length, 111 mm height |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one benchmark where both cards were tested under the same conditions. That test is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are lopsided.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 31,088, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. This represents a delta of 215.7% in favor of AMD. In practical terms, the Radeon Pro 5500M completes OpenCL workloads more than three times faster than the Quadro 6000.

This single result aligns with the broader specification differences. The Radeon Pro 5500M's FP32 throughput of 4.454 TFLOPS is more than four times the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s is similarly dominant against 32.14 GTexel/s. The AMD card's memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s also exceeds the NVIDIA card's 143.4 GB/s.

The Quadro 6000 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its strengths, such as the wider 384-bit memory bus and higher ROP count of 48, do not translate into superior measured performance in the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 31,088 dwarfs the Quadro 6000's 9,846. For workloads that rely on OpenCL compute, such as scientific simulation, video encoding, or GPU-accelerated rendering, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the only viable choice between these two.

The Radeon Pro 5500M also wins on efficiency metrics. Its 85 W TDP versus 204 W means it delivers far more performance per watt. It also requires no external power connectors, while the Quadro 6000 needs both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. For mobile or compact workstation builds, the AMD card's portable-device-dependent display outputs and lower power draw are clear advantages.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 retains relevance only in specific legacy contexts. Its 384-bit memory bus and 48 ROPs indicate a design aimed at memory-heavy tasks, but the actual bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s is lower than the AMD card's 192.0 GB/s. The Quadro 6000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) rather than the full 12_1 feature level, and it lacks Vulkan support entirely. Software that requires Fermi-era compatibility or specific Quadro driver paths might still find a use for it, but the recorded data shows no benchmark where it outperforms the Radeon Pro 5500M.

For modern professional workloads, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the definitive pick. Its 7 nm process, superior compute throughput, and broader API support make it a far more future-proof option. The Quadro 6000, with its 2010 release date and 40 nm process, is a product whose measured capabilities fall far behind. The database records one win for AMD and zero for NVIDIA, and every specification comparison reinforces that outcome.