GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and AMD Radeon Pro 575X represent two very different approaches to professional GPU design, separated by four years of architectural evolution and targeting distinct market segments. The data shows that the Quadro M6000, built on a 28 nm process from 2015, dominates the newer 14 nm Radeon Pro 575X in raw compute benchmarks, but the comparison reveals more than just a performance gap. The M6000 achieves an average benchmark score of 43301, placing it in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the 575X scores 39116, landing in the 82nd percentile. These scores place both cards in similar company, though the M6000 edges ahead in every shared test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 39688, beating the AMD Radeon Pro 575X’s score of 34773 by a margin of 14.1%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The M6000 delivers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 46913, which is 23.7% higher than the 575X’s score of 37919, making this the largest winning margin for NVIDIA in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark advantage?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X has a Geekbench Metal score of 44655, a test not available for the Quadro M6000, but in the two shared tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), the AMD card loses both. The wins tally stands at 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The M6000’s average score of 43301 is 0.1% ahead of both the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile and the Quadro M6000 24 GB, and 0.2% ahead of the RTX 4070 SUPER. The 575X’s average of 39116 is 1.1% above the Radeon Pro 580X and GeForce MX570 A, but 1.1% below the Radeon Pro 575 and RTX A500 Mobile.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X packs 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter on its 232 mm² die, nearly double the M6000’s density of 13.3M per mm², despite the M6000 having a much larger 601 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 offers 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth from its 384-bit bus, compared to 217.0 GB/s for the Radeon Pro 575X, a difference of roughly 46% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM200 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is an older, larger design with 8,000 million transistors spread across a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X, by contrast, uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a much smaller 232 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 24.6 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ markedly. The M6000 features 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, giving it a pixel rate of 106.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 213.9 GTexel/s. The 575X has fewer resources: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs, resulting in a pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s. The ROP count is particularly telling — the M6000 has three times the pixel throughput capability, which directly impacts rasterization-heavy workloads.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The M6000 ships with 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 575X has just 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, offering 217.0 GB/s. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16, but the M6000 requires a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the 575X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP. The M6000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the 575X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Clock speeds tell a story of their own. The M6000 has a fixed base clock of 988 MHz with a boost of 1114 MHz, while the 575X has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are similar — 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) for AMD — but the wider bus on the M6000 makes the effective bandwidth difference substantial. The 575X does offer FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (4.489 TFLOPS each), whereas the M6000 has no listed FP16 capability. For FP32, the M6000 leads with 6.844 TFLOPS against 4.489 TFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks provide a clear picture of relative performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 39688 against the Radeon Pro 575X’s 34773, a 14.1% advantage. This margin aligns with the raw compute specification differences — the M6000 delivers 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to 4.489 TFLOPS, a 52% theoretical advantage that does not fully translate to the benchmark, likely due to driver overhead and workload characteristics. The M6000’s higher texture rate of 213.9 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s also contributes to this gap.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger separation. The M6000 scores 46913, while the 575X manages 37919 — a 23.7% difference. This is the M6000’s strongest showing, and it suggests that the NVIDIA architecture handles modern API overhead more efficiently. The M6000’s support for Vulkan 1.4 compared to the 575X’s Vulkan 1.3 may play a role, as could the M6000’s superior memory bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s, which becomes critical in graphics-heavy Vulkan workloads. The 575X does have a Geekbench Metal score of 44655, but since the M6000 has no Metal benchmark listed, this cannot be compared directly.

Relative to their peer groups, both cards perform near the top of their respective classes. The M6000’s average score of 43301 places it within 0.8% of the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43667), its fastest rival, and just 0.2% ahead of the RTX 4070 SUPER (43223). The 575X’s average of 39116 sits 1.1% above the Radeon Pro 580X (38706) and GeForce MX570 A (38691), but trails the Radeon Pro 575 (39555) and RTX A500 Mobile (39568) by the same 1.1% margin. This indicates that while the M6000 competes with modern high-end cards, the 575X is more closely matched with mid-range mobile and entry-level professional offerings.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is the faster GPU in every measurable shared workload. Its 14.1% OpenCL lead and 23.7% Vulkan lead are decisive, and its average benchmark score of 43301 is 10.7% higher than the 575X’s 39116. The M6000 also sits in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, two points above the 575X’s 82nd percentile. For users whose priority is raw compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan environments, the M6000 is the unambiguous choice based on the benchmark evidence.

However, the Radeon Pro 575X is not without its own credentials. It offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature the M6000 lacks entirely, which could be relevant for workloads that exploit half-precision arithmetic. The 575X also consumes significantly less power (150 W versus 250 W), requires no external power connectors, and is an IGP solution — meaning it can be integrated into portable devices. Its 14 nm process and higher transistor density suggest better energy efficiency per unit of silicon, even if absolute performance falls short.

The choice between these two cards depends on the use case. For a desktop workstation with power budget flexibility and a need for maximum compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M6000 wins outright. Its 12 GB memory capacity and 384-bit bus also make it better suited for large datasets. For a mobile or low-power professional environment where FP16 support and minimal thermal footprint matter more than peak FP32 performance, the Radeon Pro 575X has a role, but those who need the fastest benchmark scores should look to NVIDIA. The head-to-head record is 2-0 in favor of the M6000, and no benchmark in the dataset suggests the 575X can close that gap.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | AMD Radeon Pro 575X |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Chip | GM200 | Ellesmere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | None listed |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | None listed |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2048 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 192 | 128 |

| Raster Output Units | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 35.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 140.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 6.844 TFLOPS | 4.489 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | None listed | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None listed |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2019-03-17 |