AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two shared benchmark tests between the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and the AMD Radeon Pro 570: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The NVIDIA card wins both, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40098, while the Radeon Pro 570 scores 27702. That is a delta of 44.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The OpenCL result is notable because AMD GPUs historically perform well in compute-oriented workloads, yet here the older Maxwell architecture still outpaces the GCN 4.0 part by a wide margin. The Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus the Radeon’s 3.960 TFLOPS provides a direct explanation for the gap: the NVIDIA card delivers roughly 73% more raw single-precision compute, and the benchmark reflects that difference.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even wider in relative terms. The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 46425, and the Radeon Pro 570 scores 31974, producing a 45.2% delta. Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose architectural efficiencies, yet the NVIDIA card still dominates. The Quadro’s higher texture rate (213.9 GTexel/s versus 123.8 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 35.36 GPixel/s) contribute to this result. The Radeon’s 32 ROPs are severely limited compared to the Quadro’s 96 ROPs, which impacts fill-rate-bound workloads in Vulkan.

The head-to-head record is clean: 2 wins for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, 0 wins for the AMD Radeon Pro 570. No benchmark in the shared set favors the AMD card. However, the Radeon Pro 570 has one additional benchmark in the database, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 39945. That test is not available for the NVIDIA card, so it cannot be compared directly. Still, the Metal score is higher than the Radeon’s OpenCL score and its Vulkan score, suggesting that the AMD card performs better under Apple’s Metal API than under the other two APIs.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro M6000 24 GB sits at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 43262. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43268, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 (43301, -0.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223, 0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43667, -0.9% delta). The Quadro M6000 24 GB is effectively tied with these modern cards in aggregate performance, despite being an end-of-life product from 2016.

The AMD Radeon Pro 570, by contrast, sits at the 78th percentile with an average benchmark score of 33207. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile (33170, 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA T550 Mobile (33161, 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA P104-100 (32982, 0.7% delta), and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32849, 1.1% delta). The Radeon Pro 570 is roughly on par with entry-level mobile NVIDIA workstation cards, which places it in a much lower performance tier than the Quadro M6000 24 GB.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 570 in every shared benchmark by over 44%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive performance gap. The Quadro delivers roughly 30% higher average benchmark score (43262 versus 33207), and its percentile rank (83 versus 78) reflects that separation.

Who should choose the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB? Anyone whose workload relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, particularly tasks that benefit from high FP32 throughput, high texture fill rates, or high pixel throughput. The card’s 24 GB of GDDR5 memory and 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth provide substantial headroom for large datasets, and its 3072 shading units give it a wide execution width. The Quadro’s 44.7% OpenCL lead and 45.2% Vulkan lead over the Radeon make it the obvious pick for cross-platform compute workloads.

Who should choose the AMD Radeon Pro 570? The data shows only one scenario where the AMD card has a unique advantage: Metal API workloads. The Radeon Pro 570 scores 39945 in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than its own OpenCL and Vulkan scores. If the target environment is exclusively Metal-based, such as macOS applications, then the Radeon Pro 570 is the only card in this comparison with a recorded Metal result. However, the data does not provide a Metal score for the NVIDIA card, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible. For any other workload, the Quadro is the superior choice.

The Radeon Pro 570 also has a lower TDP of 150 W versus the Quadro’s 250 W, and it is an IGP with no power connectors, which makes it suitable for portable or low-power systems. But the benchmark data does not show any performance win for the AMD card in the shared tests. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro M6000 24 GB wins on performance, while the Radeon Pro 570 only makes sense for Metal-specific or low-power deployment scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40098, while the AMD Radeon Pro 570 scores 27702. The NVIDIA card leads by 44.7%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 46425 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 31974 for the AMD Radeon Pro 570. That is a 45.2% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 570 win any benchmark in the shared set?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 2 wins for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and 0 wins for the AMD Radeon Pro 570.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has an average benchmark score of 43262, while the AMD Radeon Pro 570 averages 33207. The NVIDIA card is about 30% higher.

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB ranks at the 83rd percentile, while the AMD Radeon Pro 570 ranks at the 78th percentile.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD card shows a unique strength?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 570 scores 39945 in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than its OpenCL (27702) and Vulkan (31974) scores. No Metal score is recorded for the NVIDIA card, so this is the only test where the AMD card demonstrates a platform-specific advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip on a 28 nm process from TSMC, with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro 570 uses the Ellesmere chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story of process advantage: the AMD card packs 24.6M transistors per mm², while the NVIDIA card manages only 13.3M per mm².

Memory configurations are starkly different. The Quadro has 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon’s is 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The Radeon has a slightly higher memory clock, but the Quadro’s wider bus gives it nearly 46% more bandwidth.

Core counts diverge heavily. The Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 106.9 GPixel/s versus 35.36 GPixel/s for the Radeon, and its texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 123.8 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the Quadro delivers 6.844 TFLOPS, while the Radeon delivers 3.960 TFLOPS. The Radeon does support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (3.960 TFLOPS), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 performance.

Clock speeds are similar: the Quadro has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost of 1114 MHz, while the Radeon has a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 1105 MHz. Power and physical specifications differ: the Quadro has a 250 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Radeon is an IGP with a 150 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the Radeon has no recorded dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell generation (Mx000). The AMD Radeon Pro 570 uses GCN 4.0, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation. These are fundamentally different design philosophies.

Maxwell 2.0 focuses on high per-clock efficiency and large compute arrays. The GM200 chip packs 8,000 million transistors into a 601 mm² die, emphasizing raw throughput with 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs. Maxwell 2.0 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro’s API support includes the higher Vulkan version, which may explain part of its Vulkan benchmark advantage.

GCN 4.0, on the other hand, uses a smaller process node (14 nm) and a much smaller die (232 mm²). The Ellesmere chip has 5,700 million transistors and a higher transistor density. GCN 4.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Notably, the Radeon supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, which is useful for certain machine learning or media workloads, but the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability.

The Radeon Pro 570 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, indicating it is designed for portable devices, likely Mac systems. The Quadro is a dual-slot discrete card with a 250 W TDP and a dedicated 8-pin power connector. The Quadro’s display outputs include 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

The release timeline also differs: the Quadro launched on March 4, 2016, while the Radeon launched on June 4, 2017. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler) and a successor (Quadro Pascal), while the Radeon has neither listed. The Quadro carries a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD; the Radeon has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins decisively in both shared benchmarks. Its 44.7% OpenCL lead and 45.2% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that use these APIs. The Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 24 GB memory, and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth position it well for large-scale data processing, scientific simulations, and GPU-accelerated rendering tasks that can utilize OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 96 ROPs and 213.9 GTexel/s texture rate also give it an edge in graphics-intensive workloads, particularly those that stress fill rates.

The Quadro also wins in aggregate performance: its average benchmark score of 43262 places it at the 83rd percentile, tied with modern GPUs like the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER and RTX 5050 Mobile. This means the Quadro is not just faster than the Radeon Pro 570; it competes with current-generation hardware in the database’s overall rankings.

The AMD Radeon Pro 570 wins in one specific context: Metal API performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 39945 is its strongest recorded result across all benchmarks. For users locked into a Metal-only ecosystem, such as certain macOS applications, this is the only relevant comparison point. The Radeon also wins on power efficiency per the recorded TDP: 150 W versus 250 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for portable or low-power systems. However, the data does not show any performance win outside of the Metal-specific context.

For every other use case, the Quadro M6000 24 GB is the superior choice based on the recorded data. The Radeon Pro 570’s advantages are limited to platform compatibility (Metal) and power requirements, not raw benchmark performance. In any OpenCL or Vulkan workload, the Quadro leads by more than 44%, a margin that no architectural preference or API optimization is likely to overcome.