AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two workstation-class GPUs. Across the two shared test suites, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 secures victories in both instances, establishing a commanding lead over the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48. The most pronounced disparity emerges in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro P6000 scores 73,590 against the Radeon Pro Vega 48's 57,653. This represents a substantial 27.6% advantage in favor of the NVIDIA part, indicating a significant edge in compute workloads that leverage the Vulkan API.

In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 again takes the top spot, posting 66,382 points compared to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48's 53,757. The delta here is 23.5%, a slightly smaller but still decisive margin. While both cards are designed for professional rendering and compute tasks, the data shows the Quadro P6000 consistently outperforming its AMD counterpart by roughly a quarter to over a quarter in these raw compute exercises. The wins tally for the head-to-head is 2-0 in favor of NVIDIA.

Contextualizing these scores through the average benchmark figures and nearest rivals provides further insight. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69,986, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140, a -0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, a 0.2% delta). This shows the P6000 sits in a highly competitive performance tier. Conversely, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48's average score is 60,140, placing it in the 88th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, a -0.3% delta) and the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, a -0.3% delta). The fact that the Vega 48's average is only slightly above the RTX 4090's score in this specific benchmark list is a telling data point about the specific workloads tested, though the head-to-head results remain the primary focus for direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is considerable, reflecting different design philosophies and manufacturing timelines. The NVIDIA card is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip, and is fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. This chip houses 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1M per mm². In contrast, the AMD card is based on the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The Vega 10 chip contains 12,500 million transistors on a slightly larger 495 mm² die, resulting in a marginally higher transistor density of 25.3M per mm².

These foundational differences lead to significant variations in core configuration. The Quadro P6000 is equipped with 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro Vega 48, by contrast, has fewer of each: 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This disparity in raw compute resources directly contributes to the performance gap observed in the benchmarks. The NVIDIA GPU's pixel rate is 157.9 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 394.8 GTexel/s. The AMD GPU's corresponding figures are 76.80 GPixel/s and 230.4 GTexel/s, both roughly half of NVIDIA's output.

Memory architecture is another major point of divergence. The Quadro P6000 utilizes 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s. The Radeon Pro Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a much wider 2048-bit bus, but its effective bandwidth is lower at 402.4 GB/s. This is a critical distinction: the NVIDIA card offers three times the memory capacity but relies on a narrower, higher-clocked bus. The AMD card's advantage lies in its memory type, but the capacity difference is stark. The Quadro P6000's memory clock is noted as 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the Vega 48's memory runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective).

Compute precision capabilities also differ sharply. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 delivers 12.63 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, but its FP16 performance is listed as 197.4 GFLOPS, a ratio of 1:64, indicating a heavy bias toward single-precision work. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 provides 7.373 TFLOPS of FP32, but its FP16 performance is 14.75 TFLOPS, a 2:1 ratio, showing much stronger half-precision throughput. This suggests the AMD card could have an edge in workloads specifically optimized for FP16, even though its overall FP32 and benchmark scores are lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 66,382, which is 23.5% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48's score of 53,757.

Q: What is the difference in performance in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 73,590 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 57,653. The NVIDIA GPU leads by a margin of 27.6%.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type is it?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has a higher average benchmark score of 69,986, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has an average score of 60,140, placing it in the 88th percentile.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and OpenGL versions?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support, with NVIDIA at version 1.4 and AMD at version 1.3.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards reveal fundamental differences in their design and intended use cases. The most obvious divergence is in memory: the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 provides 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is close, with the P6000 at 432.8 GB/s and the Vega 48 at 402.4 GB/s.

Core counts differ substantially, with the NVIDIA card featuring 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, versus the AMD card's 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This leads to a significant performance gap in pixel and texture rates. The P6000 achieves 157.9 GPixel/s and 394.8 GTexel/s, while the Vega 48 achieves 76.80 GPixel/s and 230.4 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds are a key differentiator. The NVIDIA GPU has a listed base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The AMD GPU does not have a base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 786 MHz. Compute performance (FP32) is 12.63 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 7.373 TFLOPS for AMD, but the FP16 performance is inverted, with AMD at 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) and NVIDIA at 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64).

Physical and power characteristics also vary. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring a 600 W power supply and a single 8-pin connector. It measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, a null TDP, and no listed dimensions, as it is designed for portable devices. The NVIDIA card offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

The chips themselves differ in size and complexity. The NVIDIA GP102 has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, while the AMD Vega 10 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (25.1M vs. 25.3M per mm²). Release dates are also different, with the Quadro P6000 launching in late 2016 and the Radeon Pro Vega 48 in early 2019.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the clear winner in the two compute tests that were run on both cards. Its victories in Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan are decisive, with margins of 23.5% and 27.6% respectively. This indicates that for general-purpose compute tasks utilizing these APIs, the Quadro P6000 is the superior choice. Its higher FP32 throughput (12.63 TFLOPS vs. 7.373 TFLOPS) and larger memory capacity (24 GB vs. 8 GB) further cement its position for large datasets and single-precision workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 does not have a single benchmark win in the head-to-head comparison. However, its architecture does present specific potential advantages that are not captured in the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Its FP16 performance of 14.75 TFLOPS is dramatically higher than the NVIDIA card's 197.4 GFLOPS. This suggests the AMD card could be more efficient in workloads that are specifically optimized for half-precision operations, such as certain machine learning inference tasks. The use of HBM2 memory, while lower in total capacity, could also offer benefits in specific bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, though the data shows the NVIDIA card has a higher overall bandwidth figure.

The platform difference is also a key factor in determining where each card "wins." The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is a traditional, dual-slot, discrete PCIe card designed for workstation towers. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is an integrated GPU solution, designed for portable devices or Mac systems. In this context, the AMD card "wins" in terms of form factor and power simplicity, as it requires no external power connectors and is not a separate card that takes up slot space. The NVIDIA card, with its 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU, is a power-hungry component by comparison.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion for users who prioritize raw compute performance. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the definitive choice between these two. It outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 by 23.5% in OpenCL and 27.6% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is significantly higher (69,986 vs. 60,140), and it ranks in the 90th percentile versus the AMD's 88th. For professionals whose workflows rely on these compute APIs, the P6000 is the stronger performer.

The selection of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 would be contingent on factors outside the raw benchmark scores. Its status as an IGP with no power connectors and no discrete slot requirement makes it the only option for systems that cannot accommodate a dual-slot card with an 8-pin connector. If the system is a portable device or a Mac where this specific GPU is integrated, the choice is already made. However, for a user comparing these two as potential upgrades in a desktop workstation, the benchmark data offers no reason to select the AMD card for compute-heavy tasks. Its lower FP32 performance, lower core counts, and lower benchmark scores make it the less capable option in every measured test.

The one area where the AMD card shows a theoretical advantage is in FP16 compute, where it delivers 14.75 TFLOPS compared to the NVIDIA's 197.4 GFLOPS. A user with a workload that is exclusively and heavily optimized for FP16 might find the Vega 48's architecture more suitable, but this is not reflected in the Geekbench scores. The verdict from the data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the superior GPU for general compute and rendering tasks, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is a product for a specific, limited system form factor with a potential niche in FP16-heavy applications.