GPU Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 compare to the AMD Radeon Pro 575 in average benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro M6000 achieves an average benchmark score of 43,301, while the Radeon Pro 575 scores 39,555. That puts the Quadro M6000 roughly 9.5% ahead overall, and it sits in the 84th percentile of all GPUs versus the Radeon Pro 575's 82nd percentile.

Q: Which card wins in the OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 39,688 against the AMD Radeon Pro 575's 34,596, a decisive 14.7% advantage. This is the larger of the two head-to-head deltas, suggesting NVIDIA's advantage grows in compute-heavy workloads.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Radeon Pro 575 comes out ahead?

A: In the head-to-head comparison, the Radeon Pro 575 wins zero tests. However, it does have a Geekbench Metal score of 46,192, a test the Quadro M6000 does not have a recorded result for, so that platform-specific API remains an AMD-only data point.

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

A: The Quadro M6000 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 46,913 versus 37,878 for the Radeon Pro 575, giving NVIDIA a 23.9% lead. This is the biggest single-test margin between the two cards.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two architectures?

A: The Radeon Pro 575's 14 nm GlobalFoundries process packs 24.6 million transistors per mm², nearly double the Quadro M6000's 13.3M / mm² on TSMC's 28 nm node. Despite this density advantage, the Quadro M6000's larger die and higher transistor count still yield superior raw performance.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 achieves 106.9 GPixel/s, which is more than triple the Radeon Pro 575's 35.07 GPixel/s. This reflects the Quadro M6000's 96 ROPs against the Radeon Pro 575's 32 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 8,000 million transistors onto a massive 601 mm² die. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 uses GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, with 5,700 million transistors on a much smaller 232 mm² die.

The transistor density story is striking: AMD achieves 24.6M transistors per mm² versus NVIDIA's 13.3M / mm², a 1.85x density advantage for the newer process node. Yet the Quadro M6000 compensates with sheer scale, its die is 2.6x larger, and its transistor count is 40% higher. This speaks to two different strategies: NVIDIA throwing silicon at the problem versus AMD leveraging process efficiency.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro M6000 fields 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 575 counters with 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and just 32 ROPs. The ROP deficit is particularly glaring, the Radeon Pro 575 has one-third the rasterization throughput of the Quadro M6000, which explains the massive pixel rate gap.

The Radeon Pro 575 does have one architectural trick: its FP16 performance is rated at 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning it can process half-precision at the same rate as FP32. The Quadro M6000 lists no FP16 capability, which could matter for certain AI or compute workloads that exploit half-precision.

Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but there's a version split: the Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 575 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro M6000's newer API versions could enable additional rendering features in Vulkan titles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, and the margins are meaningful.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 versus 34,596 for the Radeon Pro 575. That 14.7% delta aligns with the FP32 compute gap, the Quadro M6000 delivers 6.844 TFLOPS against 4.489 TFLOPS, a 52% theoretical advantage that doesn't fully translate to real-world OpenCL scaling but still leaves AMD trailing.

The Vulkan test shows an even wider split. The Quadro M6000 hits 46,913, while the Radeon Pro 575 manages 37,878, a 23.9% margin. This suggests NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture handles Vulkan's low-level draw call overhead and async compute patterns more efficiently. The Quadro M6000's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the Radeon Pro 575's 1.3 could also play a role, though the benchmark likely exercises core rendering paths rather than bleeding-edge extensions.

Interestingly, the Radeon Pro 575's Metal score of 46,192 outpaces both cards' OpenCL results and nearly matches the Quadro M6000's Vulkan score. But since the Quadro M6000 has no Metal benchmark recorded, this cannot be compared directly. Still, it indicates AMD's GCN architecture was well-optimized for Apple's Metal API.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy: 43,301 for the Quadro M6000 versus 39,555 for the Radeon Pro 575. Nearest rivals for the Quadro M6000 include the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, +0.1%) and RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667, -0.8%), while the Radeon Pro 575 sits near the RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, 0%) and Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, -1.3%). The Quadro M6000's closest competitor is essentially a statistical tie, while the Radeon Pro 575 also trades blows with its nearest neighbors.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge across nearly every major category. Memory capacity: the Quadro M6000 ships with 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus delivering 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro 575 offers 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 217.0 GB/s. That's 3x the capacity and 46% more bandwidth for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds are only partially documented. The Quadro M6000 lists base and boost clocks at 988 MHz and 1114 MHz, respectively. The Radeon Pro 575 lists no base or boost clocks in the data, only a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro M6000's 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). AMD's memory runs slightly faster, but the narrower bus negates that advantage.

Power and physical design differ fundamentally. The Quadro M6000 is a dual-slot card drawing 250 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Radeon Pro 575 is an MXM module with 150 W TDP and no power connectors, it's designed for portable or all-in-one systems, drawing power through the MXM interface. The Quadro M6000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Radeon Pro 575 has no listed dimensions, reflecting its modular nature.

Display outputs also tell the story: the Quadro M6000 provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor professional setups, while the Radeon Pro 575's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop or iMac implementation.

Release timing shows a two-year gap: the Quadro M6000 launched March 20, 2015, and the Radeon Pro 575 arrived June 4, 2017. Both are now end-of-life products. The Quadro M6000's predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal, while the Radeon Pro 575 lists no predecessor or successor.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins every head-to-head benchmark category in the data. Its 14.7% OpenCL lead and 23.9% Vulkan advantage make it the clear choice for raw compute performance in cross-platform APIs. The 12 GB memory capacity is triple the Radeon Pro 575's 4 GB, which would matter for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-application workflows. The 384-bit memory bus and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth provide 46% more memory throughput, beneficial for bandwidth-bound rendering tasks. With 96 ROPs and a 106.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, the Quadro M6000 is also dramatically stronger at rasterization-heavy workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575's wins are more circumstantial. Its Metal score of 46,192, though not directly comparable to the Quadro M6000, suggests strong performance in Apple ecosystem applications. The 150 W TDP and MXM form factor make it suitable for systems where the Quadro M6000's 250 W dual-slot design simply won't fit. The 14 nm process and 24.6M / mm² transistor density indicate better power efficiency per transistor, and the 1:1 FP16 capability offers a compute advantage for half-precision workloads. The 4 GB memory might suffice for lighter professional tasks or portable workflows.

The percentile rankings are close: 84th for the Quadro M6000 versus 82nd for the Radeon Pro 575. Both are respectable, but the gap in raw scores, 43,301 versus 39,555, places them in slightly different performance tiers despite similar percentile positioning.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 575 in every directly comparable benchmark, with margins ranging from 14.7% in OpenCL to 23.9% in Vulkan. It offers triple the memory capacity, 46% more bandwidth, over 50% more FP32 compute, and triple the pixel fill rate. For any workload that runs on OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M6000 is the stronger card.

However, the Radeon Pro 575 isn't without merit. Its MXM form factor and 150 W TDP make it the only viable option for portable or compact systems where the Quadro M6000's dual-slot, 250 W, 267 mm-long design cannot physically fit. Its 1:1 FP16 throughput is a modern capability the Quadro M6000 lacks entirely, which could tip the scales for machine learning inference or scientific compute using half-precision. And its strong Metal score suggests it's the better choice for macOS environments despite lacking a direct head-to-head comparison.

Who should pick which? If you need maximum compute performance, large memory capacity, or multi-display professional output, the data points squarely to the NVIDIA Quadro M6000. If you're constrained by form factor, power budget, or Apple ecosystem compatibility, the AMD Radeon Pro 575 is the pragmatic choice, but benchmark results indicate you'll be sacrificing 14-24% performance in cross-platform workloads. The Quadro M6000 is the performance king, while the Radeon Pro 575 wins on efficiency and portability.