AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database positions the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II and NVIDIA Quadro P6000 as two very different professional graphics solutions, separated by nearly three years of release dates and fundamentally different design philosophies. The recorded data shows the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II holds a clear performance advantage in the two shared compute workloads, winning both head-to-head tests by margins of 49.2% and 35.4% respectively. Its average benchmark score of 109,617 places it at the 94th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 averages 69,986, sitting at the 90th percentile.

For users whose workflows rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute acceleration, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II is the stronger option based on the measured deltas. The data shows a 49.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 35.4% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, which translates into substantially shorter render times or simulation waits in applications that leverage those APIs. The AMD card also carries 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 825.3 GB/s of bandwidth, a configuration that suits large dataset manipulation and high-resolution texture workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, despite being the older architecture, still holds relevance in specific scenarios. Its 96 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s, which is 43% higher than the AMD card's 110.1 GPixel/s. That advantage suggests the Quadro P6000 may handle certain rasterization-heavy tasks more efficiently, even if its raw compute throughput is lower. The card also draws 250 W versus 475 W and requires only a 600 W power supply, making it far easier to integrate into existing workstations.

The verdict splits cleanly: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II for compute-bound professionals who need maximum OpenCL and Vulkan performance plus larger memory capacity, and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 for those who prioritize pixel throughput, lower power draw, and a dual-slot form factor. The AMD card is quad-slot and uses the Apple MPX bus interface, which limits its physical compatibility to Apple Mac Pro systems. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and is a dual-slot design, offering broader chassis compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II averages 109,617 across recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 averages 69,986. The AMD card sits at the 94th percentile of all GPUs, the NVIDIA at the 90th.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II scores 99,048 versus the NVIDIA Quadro P6000's 66,382, a delta of 49.2% in AMD's favor.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 win any benchmark category?

A: The head-to-head data records two tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD card wins both. The NVIDIA card does not record a win in any shared benchmark, though it has a higher pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s versus 110.1 GPixel/s.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II features 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 825.3 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II lists a TDP of 475 W and a suggested power supply of 850 W. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 lists a TDP of 250 W and a suggested power supply of 600 W.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The database records both as end-of-life products. The AMD card was released on 2019-06-02, and the NVIDIA card on 2016-09-30.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II uses the Vega 20 chip built on GCN 5.1 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip on Pascal architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 16 nm process. It contains 11,800 million transistors across a 471 mm² die, for a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter.

These process differences explain the transistor density gap. AMD fit more transistors into a smaller physical area using the more advanced 7 nm node, while NVIDIA's 16 nm process required a larger die to house fewer transistors. The AMD card's 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs compare to NVIDIA's 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. AMD has more shading units and TMUs, while NVIDIA has more ROPs.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The AMD card uses HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus width, enabling 825.3 GB/s of bandwidth across 32 GB of capacity. The NVIDIA card uses GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s across 24 GB. Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, so neither accelerates those workloads in hardware.

The bus interfaces differ fundamentally. AMD uses Apple MPX, a proprietary connector for Apple Mac Pro systems, while NVIDIA uses the industry-standard PCIe 3.0 x16. The AMD card occupies four slot widths, the NVIDIA card two. Display outputs also differ: AMD provides one HDMI 2.0b and four Thunderbolt ports, NVIDIA provides one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

API support shows one notable difference in Vulkan versions. AMD lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. NVIDIA lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card supports a newer Vulkan revision despite being the older product, which may matter for applications that rely on newer Vulkan extensions.

Specification Differences

Clock speeds favor the AMD card. Its base clock is 1574 MHz with a boost of 1720 MHz, compared to NVIDIA's 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. Memory clocks show 806 MHz (1612 Mbps effective) for AMD and 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. The higher effective memory speed on NVIDIA does not compensate for the much narrower 384-bit bus versus AMD's 4096-bit bus.

Compute throughput metrics follow the shading unit and clock advantages. AMD records 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 28.18 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. NVIDIA records 12.63 TFLOPS FP32 and 197.4 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio. The FP16 gap is enormous, with AMD delivering over 140 times the half-precision throughput. Texture rates stand at 440.3 GTexel/s for AMD and 394.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. Pixel rates flip the comparison: NVIDIA's 157.9 GPixel/s exceeds AMD's 110.1 GPixel/s due to its 96 ROPs versus 64.

Power and physical specifications diverge significantly. AMD lists 475 W TDP, NVIDIA 250 W. Suggested power supplies are 850 W and 600 W respectively. The AMD card is quad-slot with no listed power connector, while the NVIDIA card is dual-slot with a single 8-pin connector. NVIDIA provides dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height; AMD does not list physical dimensions. Release dates place the AMD card at 2019-06-02 and the NVIDIA card at 2016-09-30. The NVIDIA card has a recorded predecessor, Quadro Maxwell, and successor, Quadro Volta; AMD lists no predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two shared benchmark results for these cards, both using Geekbench variants. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II scores 99,048 against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000's 66,382. The delta of 49.2% represents AMD's largest recorded win. This result aligns with the raw FP32 and FP16 throughput figures: AMD delivers 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 versus 12.63 TFLOPS, and 28.18 TFLOPS FP16 versus 197.4 GFLOPS. OpenCL workloads that utilize FP16 compute would see particularly dramatic differences.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card scores 99,621 against 73,590 for NVIDIA, a 35.4% margin. The Vulkan gap, while still substantial, is narrower than OpenCL. The NVIDIA card's higher pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s may help in certain Vulkan rendering paths, narrowing the compute-driven deficit. Still, the AMD card's 49.2% and 35.4% wins in both shared tests give it a clean 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

The average benchmark scores corroborate the head-to-head results. AMD's 109,617 average sits 56.6% above NVIDIA's 69,986. The nearest rival data places AMD between the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 at 110,725 (-1% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo at 106,750 (+2.7% delta). The NVIDIA Quadro P6000's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, scores 69,870, a mere 0.2% difference. The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 sits 0.2% above the Quadro P6000, placing both cards in a tight performance cluster around the 70,000 mark.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II wins in compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan. Its 49.2% OpenCL lead and 35.4% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, or data processing tasks built on those APIs. The 32 GB HBM2 memory with 825.3 GB/s bandwidth provides substantially more capacity and nearly double the bandwidth of the NVIDIA card, which benefits large model training, high-resolution image processing, or multi-layer compositing. The FP16 throughput of 28.18 TFLOPS, delivered at a 2:1 ratio, supports half-precision compute workflows that the NVIDIA card cannot handle effectively given its 1:64 FP16 ratio and 197.4 GFLOPS ceiling.

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 wins in specific rasterization-oriented scenarios. Its 157.9 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds AMD's 110.1 GPixel/s by 43.4%, which can translate to faster fill-rate-bound operations such as certain display compositing, multisampled rendering, or pixel-heavy post-processing effects. The 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested power supply make it viable in workstations with modest power budgets, and its dual-slot form factor with a single 8-pin connector fits standard expansion slots without the space demands of AMD's quad-slot design. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provides broad compatibility across workstation motherboards, whereas the Apple MPX interface restricts the AMD card to Apple Mac Pro systems.

For Vulkan API support, the NVIDIA card lists version 1.4 versus AMD's 1.3, which could matter for applications using the newest Vulkan features. However, the measured Vulkan benchmark still favors AMD by 35.4%, so any API-level advantage does not translate into a performance win in the recorded test.

The data ultimately splits along workload lines. Compute-intensive professionals with Apple Mac Pro systems and power headroom should select the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II. Those needing lower power draw, broader chassis compatibility, and higher pixel throughput should consider the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, accepting lower compute performance and older memory technology. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability and platform support should factor into any purchasing decision.