AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in direct comparison: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 takes both benchmark tests against the NVIDIA Quadro M6000. The AMD card wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests, while the Quadro M6000 records no wins. This is a decisive sweep, but the margin of victory varies significantly depending on the API tested.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 53,757 points against the Quadro M6000's 39,688 points. That is a 35.4% advantage for the AMD card. The gap is substantial and indicates that the Vega 48 has a considerable compute throughput edge in this general-purpose GPU workload. The AMD card's FP32 output is listed at 7.373 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M6000 manages 6.844 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 8% in raw peak single-precision rate, but the actual benchmark delta is much larger at 35.4%. This suggests architectural efficiency differences beyond simple peak FLOPs, such as memory bandwidth and driver scheduling, are playing a role.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 again leads, scoring 57,653 points versus the Quadro M6000's 46,913 points. The delta here is 22.9%. Interestingly, the AMD card's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, while the NVIDIA card's Vulkan score is also higher than its OpenCL score, but the relative improvement is larger for AMD. The Vega 48 improves from 53,757 OpenCL to 57,653 Vulkan (a 7.2% gain), while the M6000 improves from 39,688 OpenCL to 46,913 Vulkan (an 18.2% gain). Despite the Quadro narrowing the relative gap in Vulkan, it still trails by a substantial margin.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 holds an average benchmark score of 60,140 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 averages 43,301, which places it in the 84th percentile. The percentile gap is smaller than the raw score gap might suggest, indicating that the M6000 sits in a competitive range among its contemporaries, but the Vega 48 is clearly positioned higher in the overall distribution.

The nearest rivals for the Vega 48 further contextualize its standing. The Intel Arc Pro A60 averages 60,326 (0.3% below the Vega 48), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 averages 60,347 (also 0.3% below). The AMD Radeon PRO V710 and NVIDIA P102-100 trail by 2.5% and 2.8% respectively. This shows the Vega 48 sits in a tight cluster with some very modern and powerful cards, despite its older release date. For the Quadro M6000, its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (0.2% ahead). The M6000 is essentially tied with these cards, with its performance within a fraction of a percent of each.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm allows AMD to pack more transistors into a smaller area. The Vega 10 die contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The GM200 die contains 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, yielding a density of only 13.3 million per mm². AMD's density advantage is roughly 90% higher per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s. The Vega 48 has a 26.8% bandwidth advantage despite having less total memory. The HBM2 implementation also explains the slot width difference: the Vega 48 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the M6000 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 267 mm length.

Core counts are identical in some respects. Both cards have 3,072 shading units and 192 texture mapping units. However, the render output units differ: the Vega 48 has 64 ROPs while the M6000 has 96 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA card a higher pixel rate: 106.9 GPixel/s versus the AMD card's 76.80 GPixel/s, a 39.2% advantage for NVIDIA in pixel throughput. The texture rates are closer: the Vega 48 achieves 230.4 GTexel/s versus the M6000's 213.9 GTexel/s, a 7.7% advantage for AMD.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Quadro M6000 has explicitly listed base and boost clocks: 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The Vega 48 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. Memory clocks also differ: the M6000 runs at 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective, while the Vega 48's memory runs at 786 MHz with 1572 Mbps effective. The effective data rate difference is large, but the Vega 48's wider bus (2048-bit vs 384-bit) compensates to deliver higher total bandwidth.

FP16 compute is another distinguishing factor. The Vega 48 lists FP16 performance at 14.75 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning it can double its throughput for half-precision work. The Quadro M6000 lists no FP16 capability at all, indicating it lacks dedicated half-precision acceleration. This is a meaningful architectural difference for workloads that leverage FP16.

API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL: both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ: the Vega 48 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the M6000 supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer revision for the NVIDIA card. The M6000 also supports one additional display configuration: 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Vega 48's outputs are listed as portable-device-dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most workloads: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is the stronger performer. It wins both head-to-head tests by substantial margins, holds a 38.9% higher average benchmark score (60,140 vs 43,301), and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (88th vs 84th). If the primary concern is raw compute throughput across OpenCL and Vulkan, the Vega 48 is the definitive pick.

However, the Quadro M6000 is not without its advantages. It has 50% more memory (12 GB vs 8 GB), which matters for workloads that exceed 8 GB of VRAM usage. It also has a higher pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s vs 76.80 GPixel/s), suggesting better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The M6000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API revision than the Vega 48's Vulkan 1.3. For users who need maximum memory capacity or work in environments that rely on the NVIDIA ecosystem's specific features, the M6000 remains a viable option.

The release dates also inform the decision. The Vega 48 launched on 2019-03-18, while the M6000 launched on 2015-03-20, a four-year gap. The newer AMD card benefits from architectural improvements and a more advanced manufacturing process. Both are end-of-life products, so neither offers a future upgrade path from the vendor.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Vega 10 vs GM200
• Architecture: GCN 5.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Process Node: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs TSMC
• Transistors: 12,500 million vs 8,000 million
• Die Size: 495 mm² vs 601 mm²
• Transistor Density: 25.3M / mm² vs 13.3M / mm²
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 12 GB
• Memory Type: HBM2 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 2048 bit vs 384 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 402.4 GB/s vs 317.4 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 786 MHz / 1572 Mbps effective vs 1653 MHz / 6.6 Gbps effective
• Base Clock: not listed vs 988 MHz
• Boost Clock: not listed vs 1114 MHz
• ROPs: 64 vs 96
• Pixel Rate: 76.80 GPixel/s vs 106.9 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 230.4 GTexel/s vs 213.9 GTexel/s
• FP32: 7.373 TFLOPS vs 6.844 TFLOPS
• FP16: 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) vs not listed
• TDP: not listed vs 250 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: not listed vs 600 W
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2
• Vulkan Version: 1.3 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: not listed vs 267 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2019-03-18 vs 2015-03-20
• Predecessor: not listed vs Quadro Kepler
• Successor: not listed vs Quadro Pascal

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140 points across all recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 averages 43,301 points. The Vega 48 is 38.9% higher.

Q: How much faster is the Vega 48 in OpenCL?

A: The Vega 48 scores 53,757 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the M6000's 39,688, giving the AMD card a 35.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 win any benchmark test?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the M6000 loses both recorded tests. The Vega 48 wins 2 tests, and the M6000 wins 0.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Vega 48 packs 25.3 million transistors per mm² on its 14 nm process. The M6000 has 13.3 million per mm² on its 28 nm process. AMD's density is roughly 90% higher.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 wins on:

• OpenCL compute performance: 35.4% ahead of the M6000 in Geekbench OpenCL.
• Vulkan compute performance: 22.9% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan.
• Memory bandwidth: 402.4 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s, a 26.8% advantage.
• FP32 peak throughput: 7.373 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS.
• FP16 capability: supports 14.75 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio; the M6000 has no listed FP16.
• Texture rate: 230.4 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s.
• Transistor density: 25.3M / mm² versus 13.3M / mm² on a smaller die.
• Overall percentile ranking: 88th versus 84th.

NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins on:

• Memory capacity: 12 GB versus 8 GB, a 50% advantage for memory-hungry workloads.
• Pixel rate: 106.9 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s, a 39.2% advantage in fill-rate-bound tasks.
• ROP count: 96 versus 64.
• Vulkan API version: 1.4 versus 1.3.
• Explicit clock specifications: base 988 MHz and boost 1114 MHz are listed, while the Vega 48 has no listed clocks.
• Physical form factor: dual-slot with standard display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2) versus the Vega 48's IGP form factor with portable-device-dependent outputs.
• Lower power draw: 250 W TDP versus no TDP listed for the Vega 48, but the M6000's 250 W is explicitly documented.