AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and NVIDIA Quadro P6000 are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs from the 2016-2017 era, but they approach the task from fundamentally different architectural directions. Based strictly on the benchmark data available, the Radeon Pro Vega 64 holds a narrow but consistent edge in the two shared Geekbench tests, while the Quadro P6000 counters with a larger memory pool and a matching 91st vs 90th percentile standing. The data shows a close contest where the AMD card edges ahead in raw compute throughput in these specific workloads, but the NVIDIA card remains highly competitive, particularly for users prioritizing VRAM capacity.

The Verdict

From the benchmark results alone, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is the stronger pick for users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, as it wins both head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 71,094 against the Quadro P6000’s 66,382, a margin of 7.1%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card again wins, posting 74,174 versus 73,590, a narrower 0.8% advantage. The AMD card’s average benchmark score of 72,379 also exceeds the Quadro P6000’s 69,986, placing it at the 91st percentile of all GPUs compared to the NVIDIA card’s 90th percentile.

The Quadro P6000, however, is not without its merits. It offers 24 GB of GDDR5X memory versus the AMD card’s 16 GB of HBM2, which is a 50% capacity advantage. For workloads that demand large memory footprints—such as massive datasets or high-resolution rendering—this could be the deciding factor. The NVIDIA card also has a higher pixel rate (157.9 GPixel/s vs 86.4 GPixel/s) and texture rate (394.8 GTexel/s vs 345.6 GTexel/s), though these metrics are not directly reflected in the Geekbench scores provided.

The verdict is nuanced: if the target applications are dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 delivers measurable wins. If the primary need is memory capacity and the workloads are more graphics-oriented, the Quadro P6000’s 24 GB frame buffer makes it the safer choice. The data does not support a clear overall winner; it supports a workload-dependent decision.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has an average benchmark score of 72,379, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 69,986. This places the AMD card at the 91st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000 sits at the 90th percentile.

Q: How does the AMD card compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64’s average score is 72,379, while the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal scores 72,098. The AMD card is 0.4% ahead, which is a negligible margin indicating near-identical performance levels.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 comes with 16 GB of HBM2 memory, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 features 24 GB of GDDR5X memory. This gives the Quadro P6000 a 50% larger memory pool.

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL test and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 71,094 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 66,382. This represents a 7.1% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Are both cards from the same manufacturing process node?

A: No. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses a 16 nm process from TSMC. Both have similar transistor counts, with AMD at 12,500 million and NVIDIA at 11,800 million.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. No launch MSRP is available for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip based on the GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a die size of 495 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip based on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a slightly smaller 471 mm² die, giving a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter.

The AMD card features 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has fewer shading units at 3,840, but compensates with 240 TMUs and a significantly higher 96 ROPs. Memory architectures diverge sharply: AMD uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card achieves higher FP16 performance at 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus NVIDIA’s 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), but NVIDIA leads in FP32 with 12.63 TFLOPS against AMD’s 11.06 TFLOPS.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4 while the AMD card is limited to Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs, while the NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design with a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. Display outputs also differ: AMD relies on portable device outputs, while NVIDIA provides 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has a base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost clock of 1350 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 runs faster at 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also distinct: AMD’s HBM2 runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective), while NVIDIA’s GDDR5X runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective).

In terms of memory, the AMD card offers 16 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card doubles down with 24 GB of GDDR5X, a 384-bit bus, and a higher 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. Rasterization rates favor NVIDIA: the Quadro P6000 delivers 157.9 GPixel/s pixel rate and 394.8 GTexel/s texture rate, versus AMD’s 86.4 GPixel/s and 345.6 GTexel/s. Compute throughput favors NVIDIA in FP32 (12.63 TFLOPS vs 11.06 TFLOPS), but AMD dominates in FP16 (22.12 TFLOPS vs 197.4 GFLOPS).

Physical and power characteristics differ as well. The AMD card is an IGP with no slot width specified, no power connectors, and no dedicated display outputs. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The AMD card has a TDP of 250 W, matching the NVIDIA card’s 250 W TDP. Release dates differ by roughly nine months: AMD launched on 2017-06-26, while NVIDIA launched on 2016-09-30. Both are end-of-life, with NVIDIA listing a predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta), while AMD lists none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers two Geekbench tests, both won by the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 71,094 against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 66,382, a decisive 7.1% margin. This is the largest performance gap in either test and suggests that the AMD card’s GCN 5.0 architecture handles OpenCL compute workloads more efficiently than NVIDIA’s Pascal. The AMD card’s higher FP16 throughput (22.12 TFLOPS) may contribute to this advantage, as OpenCL workloads can leverage mixed-precision operations.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows dramatically. The AMD card scores 74,174 while the NVIDIA card scores 73,590, a difference of just 0.8%. This near-tie indicates that Vulkan performance is more balanced between the two architectures. The NVIDIA card’s Vulkan 1.4 support versus AMD’s Vulkan 1.3 does not translate into a win, but it does keep the card highly competitive. Notably, the AMD card’s Vulkan score is its highest of the three benchmarks, while the NVIDIA card’s Vulkan score is also its best, suggesting both cards perform optimally in this API.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64’s average score of 72,379 places it 3.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 69,986. The AMD card’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, scores 72,098, which is only 0.4% behind. Meanwhile, the Quadro P6000’s closest competitor, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, scores 69,870, a 0.2% gap. These deltas confirm that both cards sit in a tight performance band where small architectural differences determine the outcome.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins decisively in OpenCL compute, posting a 7.1% higher score than the Quadro P6000. This suggests it is better suited for OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The AMD card also edges out the NVIDIA card in Vulkan by 0.8%, making it the stronger choice for Vulkan-based game engines or real-time visualization workloads. Its higher FP16 throughput (22.12 TFLOPS) is a clear advantage for applications that support half-precision arithmetic, which can double throughput on supported workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, despite losing both head-to-head tests, wins in several specific areas. Its 24 GB memory capacity is 50% larger than the AMD card’s 16 GB, making it the better option for workloads that exceed 16 GB of VRAM, such as massive 3D scenes, large medical imaging datasets, or multi-GPU rendering configurations. Its higher pixel rate (157.9 GPixel/s vs 86.4 GPixel/s) and texture rate (394.8 GTexel/s vs 345.6 GTexel/s) indicate superior rasterization throughput, which benefits traditional graphics workloads like CAD, DCC viewport rendering, and high-resolution output. The NVIDIA card also has a higher FP32 throughput (12.63 TFLOPS vs 11.06 TFLOPS), which matters for applications locked to single-precision compute.

The practical split is clear: choose the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 for compute-heavy OpenCL or Vulkan pipelines, especially those leveraging FP16. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 for graphics-heavy workflows that demand maximum VRAM capacity and rasterization speed. The benchmark data does not declare a single winner—it defines two distinct profiles for different professional needs.