AMD Radeon Pro 5600M vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data delivers a decisive verdict in every matched test: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 across all three Geekbench workloads. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Metal, where the Radeon Pro 5600M scores 55,030 against the Quadro K6000's 7,932, a difference of 85.6% in favor of the AMD part. This is not a narrow margin; it is a generational leap in compute throughput on Apple's Metal API, and it reflects the Radeon's modern architecture rather than any incremental tuning.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card again leads, posting 47,783 versus 23,749 for the Quadro K6000. That is a 50.3% advantage, meaning the Radeon Pro 5600M delivers roughly double the OpenCL performance of the older NVIDIA workstation flagship. The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern: 46,425 for the Radeon Pro 5600M against 25,409 for the Quadro K6000, a 45.3% lead. Across all three workloads, the AMD part wins by margins ranging from 45% to over 85%, and the Quadro K6000 records zero head-to-head victories in the database.

The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro 5600M averages 16,351, sitting in the 59th percentile. Despite losing the average-score comparison, the Radeon's three Geekbench wins are substantial enough to define its profile. The Quadro K6000's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 (0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049 (-0.1%), and the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at 19,089 (-0.3%). The Radeon Pro 5600M's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16,361 (-0.1%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16,408 (-0.3%), and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 at 16,415 (-0.4%). These rival clusters confirm that the two cards operate in different performance tiers despite their comparable average scores.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split between these two GPUs is architectural generation and design philosophy. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip, built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M uses the Navi 12 chip, based on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The database does not list transistor count, die size, or density for the AMD part, but the process node difference alone is stark: 28 nm versus 7 nm. That four-generation process jump explains much of the efficiency and clock-speed behavior seen in the benchmarks.

Clock speeds reinforce the architectural gap. The Quadro K6000 runs at a 797 MHz base clock with a 902 MHz boost. The Radeon Pro 5600M starts at 822 MHz base and boosts to 1,144 MHz. The AMD card's higher boost clock, combined with the 7 nm process, drives its superior compute output. Memory clocks also differ dramatically in kind if not capacity alone. The Quadro K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, achieving 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5600M uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, reaching 394.2 GB/s. The AMD part has a narrower capacity by 4 GB but a wider bus by a factor of more than five, and its bandwidth advantage of 394.2 GB/s eclipses the Quadro's 288.4 GB/s.

Shader resources also shift in configuration. The Quadro K6000 fields 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Radeon Pro 5600M counters with 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the Radeon still delivers higher raw throughput: its pixel rate is 73.22 GPixel/s against the Quadro's 54.12 GPixel/s, and its FP32 compute is 5.857 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS. The Quadro K6000 does lead in texture rate at 216.5 GTexel/s versus 183.0 GTexel/s, a function of its higher TMU count and lower clock deficit. The Radeon Pro 5600M additionally supports FP16 at 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature entirely absent from the Quadro K6000's recorded specifications.

API support also differs. The Quadro K6000 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Radeon Pro 5600M lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card's newer DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version align with its later release date of June 2020 versus July 2013 for the NVIDIA part. Power and physical design diverge as well: the Quadro K6000 draws 225 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W power supply. The Radeon Pro 5600M draws just 50 W, is an integrated graphics package (IGP), needs no power connectors, and lists no suggested power supply. The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the Radeon has no recorded dimensions, reflecting its mobile, integrated nature. The Quadro K6000 also carries a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, while the Radeon Pro 5600M has no recorded launch price.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M is the stronger compute performer in every benchmark the database records for both cards. Its Geekbench Metal score of 55,030 dwarfs the Quadro K6000's 7,932, a 85.6% advantage. Its OpenCL score of 47,783 beats 23,749 by 50.3%. Its Vulkan score of 46,425 beats 25,409 by 45.3%. Any workload that relies on Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan will run markedly faster on the AMD part. The Radeon Pro 5600M also offers higher FP32 throughput, higher pixel rate, higher memory bandwidth, and a dramatically lower power draw of 50 W versus 225 W. For compute-focused tasks, the choice is unambiguous.

The Quadro K6000 retains specific advantages. It holds a higher average benchmark score of 19,030 versus 16,351, placing it in the 63rd percentile compared to the Radeon's 59th. It also leads in texture rate, 216.5 GTexel/s against 183.0 GTexel/s, and offers 12 GB of memory versus 8 GB. For workloads that favor texture throughput or need larger frame buffers, the older NVIDIA card remains relevant. The Quadro K6000's nearest rival cluster, anchored by the Radeon RX 6600 and RTX 4050 Mobile, suggests it still competes with modern midrange parts in aggregate performance. The Radeon Pro 5600M's rivals, including the RX 5700 XT and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, position it in a higher compute tier.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life, so neither represents a forward-looking purchase. But based strictly on recorded measurements, the Radeon Pro 5600M wins the compute crown, while the Quadro K6000 wins on aggregate stability and texture throughput. Users prioritizing raw compute across modern APIs should favor the AMD part. Users needing maximum memory capacity or texture fill rates may still find the Quadro K6000 serviceable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench Metal score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 55,030 in Geekbench Metal, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 scores 7,932. The AMD card leads by 85.6%.

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 47,783 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 23,749 for the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, a 50.3% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 394.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19,030, placing it in the 63rd percentile. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M averages 16,351, placing it in the 59th percentile.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 draws 225 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, two 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested 550 W power supply. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M draws 50 W, is an integrated graphics package, and needs no power connectors.

Q: Does the AMD card support FP16 compute?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M lists FP16 performance of 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1). The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M wins decisively in compute-bound and modern-API scenarios. Its Geekbench Metal result of 55,030 is the standout: for any application using Apple's Metal API, the Radeon delivers more than six times the score of the Quadro K6000's 7,932. OpenCL workloads also favor the AMD card heavily, with 47,783 versus 23,749, making it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute. Vulkan users see a similar story, 46,425 versus 25,409. The Radeon also wins on raw FP32 throughput at 5.857 TFLOPS, pixel rate at 73.22 GPixel/s, and memory bandwidth at 394.2 GB/s. Its 50 W power draw makes it suitable for integrated, power-constrained systems, and its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides a newer bus standard. The Radeon Pro 5600M additionally supports FP16 at 11.71 TFLOPS, a capability the Quadro lacks entirely.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins in narrower but still measurable areas. Its average benchmark score of 19,030 exceeds the Radeon's 16,351, and its 63rd percentile ranking versus 59th indicates better overall consistency across the database's test suite. The Quadro leads in texture rate at 216.5 GTexel/s, a meaningful edge for texture-heavy rendering workloads. It also offers 12 GB of memory, 4 GB more than the Radeon Pro 5600M, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures that exceed 8 GB. The Quadro's dual-slot design and 2x 6-pin power connectors suit traditional desktop workstation builds, while its two DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide fixed display connectivity. The Radeon's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, so it relies on the host system for video out. For users anchored to the Quadro's legacy ecosystem or needing its texture throughput and larger frame buffer, the K6000 retains a purpose.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler architecture, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M uses Navi 12 on RDNA 1.0. Process nodes differ: 28 nm for NVIDIA, 7 nm for AMD. The Quadro K6000 integrates 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die with a density of 12.6M per square millimeter; the Radeon Pro 5600M has no recorded transistor, die size, or density data. Clock speeds differ: the Quadro runs at 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost, while the Radeon runs at 822 MHz base and 1,144 MHz boost. Memory configurations differ in size, type, bus width, and bandwidth: 12 GB GDDR5 on 384-bit with 288.4 GB/s versus 8 GB HBM2 on 2048-bit with 394.2 GB/s. Shading units number 2,880 for NVIDIA versus 2,560 for AMD. TMUs number 240 versus 160. ROPs number 48 versus 64. Pixel rates are 54.12 GPixel/s versus 73.22 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 216.5 GTexel/s versus 183.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.196 TFLOPS versus 5.857 TFLOPS. The Radeon adds FP16 at 11.71 TFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro does not list. TDP is 225 W versus 50 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are 2x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus none recorded. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable device dependent. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is 1.2.175 versus 1.3. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Release dates are July 2013 versus June 2020. The Quadro K6000 has a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD, while the Radeon Pro 5600M has none recorded.