AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and AMD Radeon Pro 560 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, and their benchmark results reflect that divergence clearly. The K6000, a 2013-era professional workstation card built on Kepler, and the Pro 560, a 2017 mobile-oriented part for Mac systems using GCN 4.0, split their three head-to-head tests decisively. The data shows a tale of two architectures: the older, larger NVIDIA part dominates compute-oriented workloads, while the smaller, newer AMD part takes a surprising lead in Metal graphics performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is in the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD Radeon Pro 560 wins decisively with a score of 20,918 against the Quadro K6000’s 7,932. That represents a delta of -62.1% for the NVIDIA card, meaning the Pro 560 outperforms it by roughly 2.6 times in this specific Metal workload. This is a massive gap, and it is particularly notable because the K6000 is the far larger GPU in terms of die size, transistor count, and raw compute resources. The Metal API, being Apple-centric, clearly favors the newer GCN architecture of the Pro 560, which was designed with modern API efficiency in mind. For any workflow that leverages Metal, the Radeon Pro 560 is not just competitive—it is in another league.

The tables turn dramatically in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 scores 23,749, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 trails at 15,504. The deltaPct of 53.2% indicates the K6000 is just over half again as fast as the Pro 560. This aligns with the K6000’s workstation pedigree; OpenCL is a staple for professional compute tasks, and the K6000’s 2,880 shading units and 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput provide a substantial advantage over the Pro 560’s 1,024 shading units and 1.858 TFLOPS. The data suggests that for OpenCL-based rendering, simulation, or data processing, the older NVIDIA card remains a powerful contender despite its age.

The Geekbench Vulkan test follows a similar pattern to OpenCL, with NVIDIA winning again. The K6000 posts a score of 25,409, compared to 16,232 for the Pro 560, yielding a deltaPct of 56.5%. This is the K6000’s strongest relative showing, and it underscores a consistent theme: in cross-platform, low-level compute APIs, the K6000’s brute-force compute capability wins out. The Pro 560’s Vulkan score is respectable, but it falls short by a wide margin, highlighting that the AMD card’s architecture is better suited to Metal-specific optimizations rather than general-purpose compute across multiple APIs.

Overall, the head-to-head tally shows NVIDIA winning 2 out of 3 tests, with the sole AMD win being a lopsided one in Metal. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the K6000 averages 19,030 across all tests, while the Pro 560 averages 17,551. The K6000’s percentile rank of 63 versus the Pro 560’s 61 places both cards in the mid-range of all GPUs, but the K6000 holds a slight edge in overall compute versatility.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 wins decisively. It scores 20,918 in the Metal test, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 scores only 7,932, a delta of -62.1% for the NVIDIA card. This makes the Pro 560 approximately 2.6 times faster in this specific workload.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the clear winner. It achieves a score of 23,749 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 15,504 for the AMD Radeon Pro 560, giving the K6000 a 53.2% advantage. This reflects the K6000’s higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19,030, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17,551. This places the K6000 at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, versus the 61st percentile for the Pro 560.

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 288.4 GB/s, using a 384-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR5 memory. The AMD Radeon Pro 560 offers 81.28 GB/s on a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, which is roughly 3.5 times lower.

Q: In which API does the AMD Radeon Pro 560 perform best relative to the NVIDIA card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 performs best in Metal, where it wins by a wide margin. In OpenCL and Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins by margins of 53.2% and 56.5%, respectively, but the Pro 560’s Metal score of 20,918 dwarfs the K6000’s 7,932.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the two cards are close?

A: No. The closest result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the K6000 leads by 53.2%. The Metal test shows a 62.1% gap favoring AMD, and the Vulkan test shows a 56.5% gap favoring NVIDIA. There is no near-tie in the head-to-head data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their different release eras and design goals. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK110B chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors onto a massive 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². This is a large, power-hungry workstation chip designed for maximum compute throughput. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 21 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, resulting in a higher transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The newer process node allows AMD to achieve better density, but the total transistor budget is less than half of NVIDIA’s.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, while the Pro 560 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the K6000 a pixel rate of 54.12 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 216.5 GTexel/s, compared to 14.51 GPixel/s and 58.05 GTexel/s for the Pro 560. In terms of raw FP32 throughput, the K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS, while the Pro 560 offers 1.858 TFLOPS. The AMD card does have a 1:1 FP16 ratio at 1.858 TFLOPS, but the NVIDIA card does not list an FP16 figure, indicating a lack of dedicated half-precision support in Kepler.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The K6000 features 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 81.28 GB/s. This gives the K6000 a 3.5x advantage in memory bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets in professional workloads. The clock speeds also differ: the K6000 runs at a base of 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, while the Pro 560’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data, only its memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The K6000’s memory clock is listed at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification field. The most obvious difference is in memory: the K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Pro 560 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s. The K6000’s shading unit count is 2,880 versus 1,024 for the Pro 560, and its TMU count is 240 versus 64. The ROP count favors NVIDIA as well, at 48 versus 16. The pixel rate is 54.12 GPixel/s for the K6000 versus 14.51 GPixel/s for the Pro 560, and the texture rate is 216.5 GTexel/s versus 58.05 GTexel/s.

The FP32 performance is 5.196 TFLOPS for the K6000 versus 1.858 TFLOPS for the Pro 560, and the AMD card lists an FP16 figure of 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) while the NVIDIA card has none. The process node differs: 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm for AMD. The transistor count is 7,080 million versus 3,000 million, and the die size is 561 mm² versus 123 mm². The power requirements are starkly different: the K6000 has a 225 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs 2x 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Pro 560 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed.

The bus interface differs as well: the K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Pro 560 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the K6000, versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the Pro 560. The physical dimensions favor the Pro 560 implicitly, as it has no length or height listed, while the K6000 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. The API support shows the Pro 560 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The K6000 was released on 2013-07-22, while the Pro 560 came later on 2017-04-17. The K6000 has a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, while the Pro 560 has no listed MSRP.

The Verdict

The data makes it clear that these GPUs serve fundamentally different purposes. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan compute performance. Its scores of 23,749 and 25,409 in those respective tests are 53.2% and 56.5% higher than the Pro 560’s. The K6000 also offers vastly more memory capacity (12 GB vs 4 GB) and bandwidth (288.4 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s), which is essential for large professional datasets. Its higher FP32 throughput (5.196 TFLOPS vs 1.858 TFLOPS) and larger shading unit count (2,880 vs 1,024) make it a legitimate workstation workhorse despite its 2013 vintage. The K6000’s 63rd percentile rank and average score of 19,030 also edge out the Pro 560’s 61st percentile and 17,551 average.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560, however, is the clear winner for Metal-based workloads. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,918 obliterates the K6000’s 7,932, a 62.1% margin. This makes the Pro 560 the only rational pick for macOS environments or any application that relies on Metal. Its GCN 4.0 architecture, despite having fewer shading units and lower raw compute, is far more efficient in this specific API. Additionally, the Pro 560’s 75 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable or power-constrained systems, whereas the K6000 requires a dual-slot cooler, 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a 550 W PSU. The Pro 560 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, which may be relevant for forward-looking software compatibility.

In summary, the K6000 is the compute king, winning 2 of 3 head-to-head tests and offering superior memory and raw throughput. The Pro 560 is the Metal specialist, winning the single most lopsided test and providing a power-efficient, modern API feature set. For a professional rendering on OpenCL or Vulkan, the K6000 is the data-backed choice. For any Metal-centric workflow or a low-power integrated solution, the Pro 560 is the only sensible option. There is no universal winner; the correct pick depends entirely on the API and workload in question.