AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and AMD Radeon Pro 580 are both professional-grade, end-of-life graphics cards, but they target different segments of the market. The Quadro is a dual-slot, workstation-focused behemoth with a 24 GB frame buffer, while the Radeon Pro 580 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) designed for Apple Mac systems. Benchmark data shows the Quadro leading in both shared tests, but the Radeon counters with a native Metal benchmark score and a much lower power draw. This analysis breaks down their architectural differences, benchmark results, and ideal use cases based strictly on the provided facts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has an average benchmark score of 43262, placing it in the 83rd percentile. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 scores 40318 on average, placing it in the 82nd percentile.

Q: How do they compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins the OpenCL test with a score of 40098, which is 4.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 580’s score of 38457.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro 580 faster in any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two tests where both cards have results (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins both. The Radeon Pro 580 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What unique benchmark result does the AMD Radeon Pro 580 offer?

A: The Radeon Pro 580 has a Geekbench Metal score of 39213, a test that is not available for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB. This indicates the AMD card is optimized for Apple’s Metal API.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580, built on a 14 nm process, has a transistor density of 24.6M / mm². This is significantly higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, which has a density of 13.3M / mm² on its 28 nm process.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has a TDP of 185 W, which is lower than the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB’s TDP of 250 W. The AMD card also requires no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card needs a single 8-pin connector.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This older process node results in a massive die size of 601 mm² and a high transistor count of 8,000 million. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 580 uses the Ellesmere chip based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a more modern 14 nm process. This allows for a smaller die size of 232 mm² with 5,700 million transistors, leading to a much higher transistor density of 24.6M / mm² compared to the Quadro’s 13.3M / mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The NVIDIA card features 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 render output units (ROPs). The AMD card has fewer of each: 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. The ROP count is a stark difference, with the Quadro having three times the ROPs of the Radeon. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The Quadro M6000 24 GB ships with 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s. The Radeon Pro 580 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also supports a higher DirectX version (12_1) compared to the AMD card (12_0), though both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan API support differs slightly as well, with the Quadro supporting version 1.4 and the Radeon supporting 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the two benchmarks where both cards have comparable scores, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB demonstrates a clear performance lead. The largest margin is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro scores 46425 against the Radeon Pro 580’s 43285. This 7.3% delta is the most significant win for the NVIDIA card. The Vulkan API is often used in professional visualization and gaming workloads, and the data suggests the Maxwell architecture handles this workload more efficiently.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the gap closes but remains in NVIDIA’s favor. The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40098, while the Radeon Pro 580 scores 38457. This results in a 4.3% lead for the NVIDIA card. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and the Quadro’s higher FP32 throughput of 6.844 TFLOPS, compared to the Radeon’s 5.530 TFLOPS, likely contributes to this advantage.

The Radeon Pro 580 does have a Geekbench Metal score of 39213, but there is no comparable Metal score for the Quadro M6000 24 GB in the data. Therefore, it cannot be directly compared. The data shows the Quadro winning both head-to-head tests, with a total of 2 wins and 0 losses for the NVIDIA card. The average benchmark scores reinforce this, with the Quadro’s 43262 average being 7.3% higher than the Radeon’s 40318.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts beyond their benchmark performance. The most obvious difference is in memory capacity, where the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB offers 24 GB, triple the 8 GB found on the AMD Radeon Pro 580. The memory bus width also differs dramatically, with the Quadro using a 384-bit interface versus the Radeon’s 256-bit, leading to a bandwidth advantage of 317.4 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s for the AMD card.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has a higher base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro’s base of 988 MHz and boost of 1114 MHz. However, the NVIDIA card has higher pixel and texture rates: 106.9 GPixel/s versus 38.40 GPixel/s, and 213.9 GTexel/s versus 172.8 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance also favors NVIDIA, with 6.844 TFLOPS against AMD’s 5.530 TFLOPS. The AMD card also lists FP16 performance at 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1), while the NVIDIA card does not list an FP16 figure.

Physical and power specifications are equally divergent. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB is a dual-slot card with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), requiring a 600 W power supply and a single 8-pin power connector. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 is an IGP with no dimensions listed, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Its TDP is 185 W, which is lower than the Quadro’s 250 W. Display outputs also differ, with the Quadro offering 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins in every benchmark category where a direct comparison exists. Its strengths lie in raw compute and memory bandwidth. The 24 GB frame buffer and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and complex 3D rendering tasks that exceed the 8 GB capacity of the Radeon Pro 580. Its higher ROP count (96 versus 32) and pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s) give it a significant edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as heavy anti-aliasing or multi-display output. In the Vulkan and OpenCL tests, it leads by 7.3% and 4.3%, respectively, confirming its overall compute advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 wins in efficiency and platform integration. Its 185 W TDP is 65 W lower than the NVIDIA card’s 250 W, and it requires no external power connectors. As an IGP, it is designed for Apple Mac systems, where its Metal benchmark score of 39213 is likely more relevant than the OpenCL or Vulkan numbers. The data shows it has a higher base and boost clock, and its 14 nm process node gives it a superior transistor density, which can translate to better thermal and power characteristics in a space-constrained environment. It also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, which the NVIDIA card does not list.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB is the faster card. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (43262 versus 40318), and offers 4.3% and 7.3% leads in OpenCL and Vulkan, respectively. With triple the memory, higher bandwidth, and more shading units, ROPs, and TMUs, the Quadro is the clear choice for users who need maximum compute performance and can accommodate a dual-slot, 250 W card with a 600 W PSU requirement. Its 83rd percentile ranking, just ahead of the Radeon’s 82nd, confirms its position as a slightly stronger performer in the broader GPU landscape.

However, the Radeon Pro 580 is not without its own logic. Its 185 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a far more power-efficient option, and its IGP form factor is specifically suited for Apple Mac systems. If the primary workload is Metal-based on a Mac, the Radeon’s 39213 Metal score is the relevant data point, and the card’s integrated nature means it requires no extra space or cabling. Users should choose the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB for uncompromised workstation performance and large memory needs. They should choose the AMD Radeon Pro 580 for a lower-power, Mac-integrated solution where efficiency and platform fit matter more than raw compute wins.