AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega II are both end-of-life workstation flagships, but the data shows they are not interchangeable. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II holds a higher average benchmark score of 109967 against the Quadro RTX 6000’s 101108, a difference of roughly 8.1% based on the nearestRivals deltaPct. However, the Quadro RTX 6000 decisively wins the Vulkan benchmark by 27.6%, while the Radeon Pro Vega II counters with a 25.4% lead in OpenCL. The verdict is clear: choose the Radeon Pro Vega II for raw compute throughput and memory capacity, and the Quadro RTX 6000 for Vulkan-centric workloads and a more power-efficient, physically installable design.

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two cards cleanly by workload. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II is the overall average-score leader, with an avgBenchmarkScore of 109967 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000’s 101108. That places the Radeon Pro Vega II in the 96th percentile among all GPUs, one point higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 95th percentile. For anyone prioritizing a single aggregate metric across diverse tasks, the AMD card is the statistical pick.

Yet the head-to-head results tell a more nuanced story. In geekbench_opencl, the Radeon Pro Vega II scores 99405 versus the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74179, a 25.4% advantage for AMD. In geekbench_vulkan, the tables turn: NVIDIA scores 128037 against AMD’s 100312, a 27.6% lead. The wins are split one each, so the “winner” depends entirely on the API in question.

For users running Vulkan-based applications—common in modern game engines and some CAD visualization tools—the Quadro RTX 6000 is the definitive choice. Its Vulkan score of 128037 is the highest single benchmark result in this comparison, and it also holds a 9.7% advantage over the NVIDIA RTX A4500 in the nearestRivals list. Conversely, for OpenCL-heavy compute—scientific simulation, video rendering, or machine learning inference on that API—the Radeon Pro Vega II’s 99405 score is 2.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X and 25.4% ahead of the Quadro RTX 6000.

The physical realities further separate them. The Quadro RTX 6000 is a dual-slot card with a 260 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro Vega II is a quad-slot design with a 475 W TDP and an 850 W suggested PSU. The AMD card also uses an Apple MPX bus interface, which is not a standard PCIe slot, meaning it targets specific Mac Pro systems. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which fits conventional workstation motherboards. Users with standard PC workstations should choose the Quadro RTX 6000 for compatibility alone. Mac Pro owners with MPX slots will find the Radeon Pro Vega II the only viable option.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II uses the Vega 20 chip on GCN 5.1 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 7 nm process. It contains 13,230 million transistors on a much smaller 331 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 40.0 million per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA chip is larger and denser in absolute transistor count, but the AMD chip is more efficient in packing transistors per area. This process advantage translates to clock behavior: the Radeon Pro Vega II has a base clock of 1574 MHz and a boost clock of 1720 MHz, both higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. Note that NVIDIA’s boost clock exceeds AMD’s, but AMD’s base clock is much higher.

Feature-wise, the differences are stark. The Quadro RTX 6000 includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI acceleration. The Radeon Pro Vega II has no RT cores and no tensor cores, relying on pure GCN compute units. This means NVIDIA’s card is equipped for real-time ray tracing and tensor-based workloads, while AMD’s card has no such dedicated hardware.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Vega II uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a massive 4096-bit bus, achieving 825.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has 33% more memory capacity and 22.8% more bandwidth, which matters for large datasets. The NVIDIA card’s memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while AMD’s runs at 806 MHz with 1612 Mbps effective—the higher bus width compensates for the lower clock.

API support also differs. NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while AMD only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but NVIDIA supports Vulkan 1.4 versus AMD’s Vulkan 1.3. This explains the Vulkan benchmark gap.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II wins in OpenCL compute. Its geekbench_opencl score of 99405 is 25.4% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74179. This is a massive margin, suggesting AMD’s GCN architecture scales better on raw compute primitives in that API. The AMD card also wins in memory throughput, with 825.3 GB/s against NVIDIA’s 672.0 GB/s, and capacity, with 32 GB versus 24 GB. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound—large fluid dynamics simulations, 8K video processing, or big-data analytics in OpenCL—the Radeon Pro Vega II is the clear leader.

The AMD card also wins on raw pixel and texture rates despite lower clock speeds in some cases. Its pixel rate is 110.1 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA’s 169.9 GPixel/s, so NVIDIA actually wins there. But AMD’s texture rate is 440.3 GTexel/s against NVIDIA’s 509.8 GTexel/s, again NVIDIA wins. So the AMD card’s wins are not in rasterization throughput but in compute and memory.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins decisively in Vulkan. Its geekbench_vulkan score of 128037 is 27.6% higher than AMD’s 100312. This is the single largest performance gap in either direction. Vulkan’s lower-level API overhead likely benefits NVIDIA’s driver optimization and newer architecture. The Quadro RTX 6000 also wins in shading units (4608 versus 4096), TMUs (288 versus 256), and ROPs (96 versus 64). Its FP32 throughput of 16.31 TFLOPS exceeds AMD’s 14.09 TFLOPS, and its FP16 of 32.62 TFLOPS beats AMD’s 28.18 TFLOPS. So for raw floating-point math, NVIDIA is ahead.

The NVIDIA card also wins on power efficiency. With a 260 W TDP versus AMD’s 475 W, the Quadro RTX 6000 delivers higher FP32 performance per watt. It also requires a 600 W suggested PSU versus AMD’s 850 W, and uses standard PCIe 3.0 x16 instead of Apple MPX. For dual-slot compatibility and lower system power draw, NVIDIA is the pick.

The Radeon Pro Vega II wins on the Metal API, scoring 130183 in geekbench_metal—a benchmark the Quadro RTX 6000 does not have. This is relevant for macOS users, as Metal is Apple’s primary graphics API. AMD’s card also has 4x Thunderbolt outputs and 1x HDMI 2.0b, while NVIDIA offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II has an avgBenchmarkScore of 109967, which is 8.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000’s 101108, based on the nearestRivals deltaPct.

Q: How do the cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 128037 in geekbench_vulkan, which is 27.6% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II’s 100312.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II has 32 GB of HBM2 memory, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6. The AMD card also has higher bandwidth at 825.3 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card support ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the Quadro RTX 6000 includes 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II has no RT cores or tensor cores.

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II has a TDP of 475 W and a suggested PSU of 850 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 has a TDP of 260 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 was released on 2018-08-12, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II was released on 2019-06-02.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The geekbench_opencl test is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II’s strongest showing. It scores 99405 against the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74179, a deltaPct of -25.4% from NVIDIA’s perspective. This means AMD outperforms NVIDIA by a quarter in this API. The margin is significant enough to suggest that OpenCL-heavy workloads—such as FEA solvers, computational fluid dynamics, or video encoding pipelines that rely on OpenCL—will run considerably faster on the AMD card. For context, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II’s nearestRivals list shows it is 2.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X and 3.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, so its OpenCL performance is competitive in the broader market. The Quadro RTX 6000, meanwhile, is 5.8% behind the W6600X and 9.7% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 in average score, but its OpenCL score lags its own average.

The geekbench_vulkan test flips the script entirely. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 posts 128037, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II manages 100312. The deltaPct is +27.6% for NVIDIA, meaning NVIDIA is 27.6% faster in Vulkan. This is a larger relative gap than AMD’s OpenCL win. Vulkan is often used in real-time rendering, CAD viewports, and game development; the Quadro RTX 6000’s newer Turing architecture with RT cores likely contributes to this advantage. Notably, the Quadro RTX 6000’s Vulkan score of 128037 is higher than its OpenCL score of 74179, while the Radeon Pro Vega II’s Vulkan score (100312) is nearly identical to its OpenCL score (99405). This suggests NVIDIA’s Vulkan driver is exceptionally well-optimized, whereas AMD’s performance is consistent across APIs.

The overall wins are tied at one each. The headToHeadBenchmarks data shows winsA (NVIDIA) equals 1 and winsB (AMD) equals 1. In the aggregate, the AMD card’s higher avgBenchmarkScore of 109967 versus NVIDIA’s 101108 gives it the statistical edge, but that average includes a Metal benchmark (130183) that NVIDIA does not participate in. Without Metal, the comparison would hinge on OpenCL and Vulkan, where each card wins one test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 uses a 12 nm process, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II uses a 7 nm process. Transistor counts differ: NVIDIA has 18,600 million versus AMD’s 13,230 million. Die size is 754 mm² for NVIDIA and 331 mm² for AMD, with transistor densities of 24.7M / mm² and 40.0M / mm², respectively.

Clocks differ slightly: NVIDIA’s base is 1440 MHz and boost is 1770 MHz, while AMD’s base is 1574 MHz and boost is 1720 MHz. Memory clocks are not comparable: NVIDIA runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while AMD runs at 806 MHz with 1612 Mbps effective.

Memory size, type, and bus width all differ: 24