AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT represent two distinct eras of professional GPU design, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. Benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the AMD part, which wins all three head-to-head tests with substantial margins. The Quadro K6000, a 2013-era Kepler workstation card, retains a high average benchmark score of 19030, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, but it is outpaced by the Radeon Pro 5700 XT’s average of 18685, which also sits in the 63rd percentile. This parity in percentile ranking masks the dramatic differences in individual workload performance, where the AMD card’s modern RDNA architecture delivers results that are 55% to 84% higher, depending on the API.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the superior performer in every measured benchmark. Its Geekbench scores of 51272 in Metal, 59467 in OpenCL, and 56593 in Vulkan dwarf the Quadro K6000’s respective scores of 7932, 23749, and 25409. The delta percentages are stark, with the AMD card leading by 84.5% in Metal, 60.1% in OpenCL, and 55.1% in Vulkan. For users prioritizing raw compute or graphics throughput in modern applications, the Radeon Pro 5700 XT is the only rational choice based on this data alone.

However, the Quadro K6000 is not without merit in specific contexts. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus provides 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is substantial, though the Radeon Pro 5700 XT counters with 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 384.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card’s dual-slot design and 2x 6-pin power connectors make it a traditional add-in card, whereas the AMD card is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no display outputs and no power connectors, drawing only 130 W compared to the Quadro’s 225 W. This suggests the Radeon Pro 5700 XT is intended for Apple Mac systems or proprietary chassis, not standard PC builds. Therefore, the verdict depends on the platform: for a standard workstation with PCIe slots, the Quadro K6000 is the viable option, but for raw performance in a compatible system, the Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins outright.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins in all compute-heavy scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 59467 indicates exceptional parallel processing capability, likely stemming from its 7 nm process node and higher clocks. The Metal score of 51272 is particularly notable, as it suggests strong optimization for Apple’s graphics API, which aligns with its classification in the "Radeon Pro Mac" generation. The Vulkan score of 56593 further confirms its versatility across modern low-level APIs. In practical terms, this means tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and GPU-accelerated scientific computing will see major speedups on the AMD card.

The Quadro K6000’s wins are less obvious in benchmark scores but exist in its feature set. Its display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2) make it a functional workstation card for multi-monitor setups, something the Radeon Pro 5700 XT cannot do with its "No outputs" specification. The NVIDIA card also supports the same OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175 APIs, though the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_1), giving AMD a slight edge in newer Windows applications. The Quadro’s higher memory bus width (384-bit vs 256-bit) could theoretically benefit certain memory-intensive workloads, but the AMD card’s higher bandwidth (384.0 GB/s vs 288.4 GB/s) negates this advantage in practice. The data shows the Quadro K6000 wins only in the sense of being a self-contained, output-capable PCIe card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, built 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 mm². In contrast, the Radeon Pro 5700 XT uses the Navi 10 chip on AMD’s RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 10,300 million transistors in a much smaller 251 mm² die, achieving a density of 41.0 million per mm². This density advantage is a direct result of the newer process node, allowing AMD to fit more transistors in less space while reducing power consumption.

The compute units differ significantly. The Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the Radeon Pro 5700 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Although the NVIDIA card has more shading units and TMUs, the AMD card’s higher clock speeds (base 1243 MHz, boost 1499 MHz vs. base 797 MHz, boost 902 MHz) lead to superior throughput. This is evident in pixel rate: the AMD card achieves 95.94 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 54.12 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors AMD as well, 239.8 GTexel/s versus 216.5 GTexel/s, despite having fewer TMUs. The FP32 performance tells a similar story: 7.675 TFLOPS for AMD versus 5.196 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The AMD card also supports FP16 at 15.35 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

Memory architecture is another key divergence. The Quadro uses 12 GB GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus. The Radeon Pro 5700 XT uses 16 GB GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus. The GDDR6’s double data rate effectively doubles the bandwidth per pin, allowing the narrower bus to achieve higher total bandwidth. The AMD card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Power efficiency favors AMD dramatically: the Radeon Pro 5700 XT draws 130 W with a suggested 300 W PSU, while the Quadro draws 225 W with a suggested 550 W PSU. Finally, the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 19030, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT’s 18685. However, this average is skewed by the Quadro’s Vulkan score of 25409, which is its best result, while the AMD card’s individual scores are all much higher than its average.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT in Metal performance?

A: The AMD card scores 51272 in Geekbench Metal, which is 84.5% higher than the Quadro K6000’s score of 7932. This indicates a massive advantage for AMD in Apple-related Metal workloads.

Q: Can the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT be used as a display output card?

A: No. The FACT PACK lists its display outputs as "No outputs," and its slot width is "IGP," meaning it is an integrated graphics processor with no physical display connections. The Quadro K6000, by contrast, has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has a TDP of 130 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are newer than the Quadro K6000’s DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT has a memory bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s using 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 288.4 GB/s using 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, meaning the AMD card has roughly 33% more bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test reveals the most dramatic disparity. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT scores 51272, while the Quadro K6000 manages only 7932. This is a delta of -84.5% for the NVIDIA card, indicating that the AMD GPU is over six times faster in this API. The implications are significant for any Metal-based rendering or compute task, which would see completion times reduced by roughly 85%. The Quadro’s Kepler architecture predates Metal’s modern feature set, and the data suggests it is severely handicapped in this environment.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 59467 versus the Quadro’s 23749, a delta of -60.1%. This test is more aligned with general GPU compute, and while the gap narrows slightly, the AMD card still delivers 2.5 times the performance. The Quadro’s higher shading unit count (2880 vs 2560) cannot compensate for the AMD card’s higher clocks and architectural efficiency. The FP32 throughput difference (7.675 TFLOPS vs 5.196 TFLOPS) likely contributes to this outcome, as OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the AMD card scoring 56593 against the Quadro’s 25409, a delta of -55.1%. This is the closest of the three benchmarks, but the AMD card still leads by a wide margin. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that benefits from modern hardware design, and the RDNA architecture’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus Kepler’s Vulkan 1.2.175 may explain part of the gap. Interestingly, the Quadro’s Vulkan score is its best relative showing, suggesting its architecture handles this API better than Metal, but it still falls far short of the AMD part. Across all three tests, the Radeon Pro 5700 XT wins 3 out of 3, with an average delta of approximately -66.6% against the Quadro, underscoring the generational leap in performance.

Specification Differences

The process node is a primary differentiator: 28 nm for the Quadro K6000 versus 7 nm for the Radeon Pro 5700 XT. This leads to vastly different transistor counts and die sizes, with the AMD card having 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, while the NVIDIA card has 7,080 million on a 561 mm² die. Transistor density is 41.0M/mm² for AMD versus 12.6M/mm² for NVIDIA. Clock speeds favor AMD significantly: base 1243 MHz and boost 1499 MHz versus base 797 MHz and boost 902 MHz.

Memory specifications differ in type, size, bus width, and bandwidth. The Quadro uses 12 GB GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5700 XT uses 16 GB GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clock is similar (1502 MHz vs 1500 MHz), but effective data rate is 6 Gbps versus 12 Gbps. Shading units favor NVIDIA (2880 vs 2560), as do TMUs (240 vs 160), but ROPs favor AMD (64 vs 48). Pixel rate is 95.94 GPixel/s for AMD versus 54.12 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 239.8 GTexel/s for AMD versus 216.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is 7.675 TFLOPS for AMD versus 5.196 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, and AMD supports FP16 at 15.35 TFLOPS, which the Quadro lacks.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The AMD card has a TDP of 130 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 300 W, with an IGP slot width. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 225 W, 2x 6-pin connectors, and a suggested PSU of 550 W, with a dual-slot form factor. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are "No outputs" for AMD versus 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA. API support differs in DirectX (12_1 for AMD, 11_1 for NVIDIA) and Vulkan (1.4 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA), while OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Release dates are 2020-08-03 for AMD and 2013-07-22 for NVIDIA. The Quadro K6000’s launch MSRP was 5,265 USD, though this is not a factor in performance analysis.