AMD Radeon Pro Duo vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records only one direct comparison between these two workstation cards: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40098, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35860. The result is an 11.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card, marking its only win in the head-to-head record. The Radeon Pro Duo has no wins against the Quadro M6000 in the measured tests.

This 11.8% gap in OpenCL performance places both cards in a similar performance tier, but with the NVIDIA card holding a clear edge in this specific compute workload. Looking at the broader benchmark percentiles, the Quadro M6000 sits at the 83rd percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro Duo sits at the 80th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 43262, compared to 35860 for the Radeon, a difference that reflects the same pattern seen in the head-to-head OpenCL result.

The nearest rival data puts these scores in context. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, with its average score of 43262, sits within 0.1% of the non-24GB Quadro M6000 (43301) and 0.9% below the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43667). It also matches the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43268) and edges out the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223) by 0.1%. The Radeon Pro Duo, with its 35860 average, sits 1% above the Quadro GV100 (35520), 1.2% above the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35435), and trails the T1000 (36289) by 1.2% and the Radeon RX 5300M (36529) by 1.8%.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies. NVIDIA's Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors into a 601 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. AMD's Radeon Pro Duo uses the Capsaicin chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, also manufactured on 28 nm at TSMC, but with 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die, raising density to 14.9 million per square millimeter.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro M6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5 across a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Duo has only 4 GB of HBM across a 4096-bit bus, but that wide bus yields 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a 61% advantage in raw memory throughput despite the smaller capacity. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Quadro runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost with memory at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon Pro Duo does not have recorded base or boost clocks in the database, and its memory runs at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective).

Compute resources differ in structure. The Radeon Pro Duo has 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Quadro M6000 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This yields a 20% advantage in shading units and a 33% advantage in TMUs for AMD, but NVIDIA counters with 50% more ROPs. The theoretical peak rates reflect these differences: the Radeon Pro Duo reaches 8.192 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio), while the Quadro M6000 reaches 6.844 TFLOPS FP32 with no recorded FP16 rate. In pixel throughput, the Quadro leads with 106.9 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Radeon. In texture throughput, the Radeon leads with 256.0 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

Power and connectivity also separate them. The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Radeon Pro Duo has a 350 W TDP with three 8-pin connectors and a suggested 750 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, but the Radeon is longer at 277 mm (10.9 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the Quadro; both are 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon offers 1x HDMI 1.4a and 3x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows a split. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro Duo supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version give NVIDIA an edge in API compatibility.

Where Each One Wins

The data identifies clear strengths for each card, though the recorded benchmark coverage is limited. The Quadro M6000 24 GB wins the only head-to-head compute test, the Geekbench OpenCL run, with an 11.8% margin. Its higher ROP count (96 versus 64) and pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s) suggest an advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads. The 24 GB memory capacity, six times larger than the Radeon's 4 GB, makes it the obvious choice for datasets that exceed 4 GB, a common requirement in large-scale rendering, simulation, or deep learning inference where the model or buffer does not fit in the smaller card. Its lower 250 W TDP and single 8-pin connector also make it easier to integrate into existing workstations without power supply upgrades.

The Radeon Pro Duo wins on raw compute throughput. Its 8.192 TFLOPS FP32 exceeds the Quadro's 6.844 TFLOPS by roughly 20%, and its FP16 rate of 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1) is a capability the Quadro does not record at all. The 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, 61% higher than the Quadro's 317.4 GB/s, benefits workloads that stream large amounts of data through memory, even if the total working set fits within 4 GB. The higher shading unit count (4096 versus 3072) and TMU count (256 versus 192) give AMD an edge in shader-heavy and texture-heavy workloads. The 350 W TDP and three 8-pin connectors indicate a card designed for maximum throughput rather than efficiency.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The Quadro M6000 24 GB's average score of 43262 places it near the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43268) and slightly above the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223), while the Radeon Pro Duo's 35860 places it near the Quadro GV100 (35520) and GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35435). This suggests the NVIDIA card competes with a higher tier of modern GPUs than the AMD card, despite the Radeon's higher theoretical FLOP counts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB as the stronger overall performer in the single recorded test, with an 11.8% lead in OpenCL compute. Its higher percentile ranking (83rd versus 80th) and higher average benchmark score (43262 versus 35860) reinforce this position. The 24 GB memory capacity is a decisive practical advantage for any workload that needs to hold large datasets, and the lower power requirement (250 W versus 350 W) makes it more flexible for system integration.

The AMD Radeon Pro Duo, however, wins on paper in several architectural metrics: FP32 throughput (8.192 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS), FP16 support (8.192 TFLOPS versus none recorded), memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s), and shading unit count (4096 versus 3072). These specifications suggest it would outperform the Quadro in workloads that are compute-bound and can fit within its 4 GB memory limit. The lack of recorded base and boost clocks for the Radeon makes clock-for-clock comparison impossible from the database, but the measured OpenCL result indicates that the Quadro's architecture extracts more real-world performance from its lower theoretical peak.

Users who need large memory capacity, higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0), newer Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.170), and lower power draw should select the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB. Users who prioritize raw FP32 or FP16 compute throughput and memory bandwidth, and who work with datasets under 4 GB, should consider the AMD Radeon Pro Duo. The data does not support the Radeon as a general-purpose workstation card, given its measured 11.8% deficit in the only direct benchmark, but its architectural advantages may matter in specific compute scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40098 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35860, giving NVIDIA an 11.8% lead.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo has 4 GB of HBM.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Duo has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB's 317.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Duo reaches 8.192 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB reaches 6.844 TFLOPS FP32, a difference of about 20% in AMD's favor.

Q: Which card supports FP16 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Duo supports FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has no recorded FP16 rate in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB has a 250 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU and one 8-pin connector. The AMD Radeon Pro Duo has a 350 W TDP with a suggested 750 W PSU and three 8-pin connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB | AMD Radeon Pro Duo |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GM200 | Capsaicin |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 8,900 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) | 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 256.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.844 TFLOPS | 8.192 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 350 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 3x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 750 W |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 277 mm (10.9 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2016-03-04 | 2016-04-25 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,999 USD | 1,499 USD |