AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 produces a split decision, with each card claiming one victory in the two shared test workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X records a score of 43,810 against the NVIDIA Quadro M6000’s 39,688, a margin of 10.4% in favor of the AMD card. This is a substantial lead, indicating that the RDNA 1.0 architecture handles general-purpose compute workloads with noticeably more efficiency than the Maxwell 2.0 design.

The Vulkan results flip the outcome. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 46,913, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X trails at 45,246, a delta of 3.6% in NVIDIA’s favor. While the margin is smaller than AMD’s OpenCL advantage, it is still a meaningful win for the older Maxwell card, suggesting that the Vulkan driver and hardware implementation on the Quadro M6000 remain competitive even against a much newer GPU.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X holds an average benchmark score of 54,828, placing it in the 87th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 at 54,247 (1.1% behind), the RTX 4080 SUPER at 54,209 (1.1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB at 55,698 (1.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon 8060S at 55,757 (1.7% ahead). This places the W5700X in a tight cluster of high-end GPUs, where performance differences are minimal.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000, by comparison, averages 43,301 across its recorded benchmarks, landing in the 84th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.1% behind), the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 (0.1% behind), the RTX 4070 SUPER at 43,223 (0.2% ahead), and the RTX 4090 Mobile at 43,667 (0.8% ahead). The M6000 sits in a similarly tight grouping, though at a lower absolute performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct architectural eras. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This is a compact die at 251 mm², but it packs 10,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 41.0 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. Its die is substantially larger at 601 mm², yet it contains fewer transistors at 8,000 million, resulting in a much lower density of 13.3 million per mm². This contrast illustrates the generational leap in manufacturing efficiency.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The AMD card has a base clock of 1243 MHz and a boost clock of 2040 MHz, while the NVIDIA card operates at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The higher clocks on the RDNA part contribute significantly to its compute throughput, though the Maxwell card compensates with higher raw resource counts. The W5700X features 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The M6000 counters with 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. In terms of raw fill rates, the AMD card achieves 130.6 GPixel/s and 326.4 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA card delivers 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems differ as well. The W5700X uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1750 MHz and an effective data rate of 14 Gbps, producing a bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s. The M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, clocked at 1653 MHz with an effective rate of 6.6 Gbps, yielding 317.4 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the newer GDDR6 memory gives the AMD card a significant bandwidth advantage.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The W5700X delivers 10.44 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 20.89 TFLOPS of FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The M6000 offers 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability. The power envelope also differs, with the AMD card rated at 205 W TDP versus 250 W for the NVIDIA card, despite the NVIDIA card requiring a higher suggested PSU of 600 W compared to 550 W for the AMD card.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X demonstrates its strength in OpenCL workloads, where its 10.4% advantage over the Quadro M6000 indicates better raw compute throughput for general-purpose GPU computing. This is reinforced by its higher FP32 rating of 10.44 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS, and its significantly larger memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s. The 16 GB frame buffer also provides more headroom for large datasets compared to the 12 GB on the M6000. For applications that leverage OpenCL for rendering, simulation, or data processing, the data points clearly to the AMD card.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins in Vulkan, where its 3.6% edge over the W5700X suggests that the Maxwell architecture retains strong driver optimization for this API. The M6000 also holds advantages in raw resource counts, with more shading units (3072 vs 2560), more TMUs (192 vs 160), and more ROPs (96 vs 64). This suggests that workloads which are heavily geometry-bound or rely on rasterization throughput might still favor the older NVIDIA card, despite its lower clock speeds and older memory technology.

The pixel rate comparison favors the AMD card, at 130.6 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s, and the texture rate also leans AMD at 326.4 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. These metrics indicate that AMD holds the advantage in fill-rate-limited scenarios. However, the M6000’s larger pool of shaders and TMUs could compensate in shader-heavy workloads, particularly those that do not benefit from the higher clocks of the RDNA architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 43,810 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.4% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M6000’s 39,688.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 records 46,913 in Geekbench Vulkan, outperforming the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X’s 45,246 by a margin of 3.6%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X has an average benchmark score of 54,828, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 averages 43,301.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X delivers 10.44 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 6.844 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X has a TDP of 205 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has a higher TDP of 250 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X offers superior performance in OpenCL, higher memory bandwidth, more memory capacity, and better energy efficiency with a lower TDP. Its FP32 output of 10.44 TFLOPS is over 50% higher than the NVIDIA card’s 6.844 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability at 20.89 TFLOPS adds flexibility for mixed-precision workloads. For users running compute-intensive applications that rely on OpenCL, or those needing larger frame buffers for complex scenes, the W5700X is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000, despite being an older design, demonstrates that Maxwell 2.0 still has strengths. Its Vulkan performance leads by 3.6%, and its higher count of shading units, TMUs, and ROPs provides raw parallel resources that remain relevant. The M6000 also holds a higher percentile position relative to its immediate rivals, with its nearest competitor (RTX 4090 Mobile) only 0.8% ahead, whereas the W5700X faces rivals within 1.7% in both directions.

The choice depends on the workload. For Vulkan-based rendering pipelines, the M6000 offers a slight edge. For OpenCL compute, larger memory capacity, and lower power draw, the W5700X is the stronger option. The W5700X’s average benchmark score of 54,828 versus the M6000’s 43,301 represents a 26.6% overall advantage in the database’s recorded metrics, suggesting that for most general-purpose tasks, the AMD card is the more capable GPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every major specification. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X uses a Navi 10 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture with a 7 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 uses a GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 with a 28 nm process. The AMD card has a die size of 251 mm² with 10,300 million transistors, compared to the M6000’s 601 mm² die with 8,000 million transistors. Transistor density stands at 41.0M per mm² for AMD versus 13.3M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds differ substantially: the W5700X runs at 1243 MHz base and 2040 MHz boost, while the M6000 runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. Memory configurations contrast sharply: 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth for AMD, versus 12 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth for NVIDIA.

Compute resources differ in configuration: 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for AMD, versus 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 130.6 GPixel/s for AMD versus 106.9 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rate is 326.4 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 10.44 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS, with FP16 available only on AMD at 20.89 TFLOPS.

Power characteristics also differ: the W5700X has a TDP of 205 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the M6000 has a TDP of 250 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector. The AMD card occupies a quad-slot form factor with an Apple MPX bus interface, while the NVIDIA card uses a dual-slot design with PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt for AMD, versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA. The AMD card measures 305 mm in length, while the NVIDIA card is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card was released on 2019-12-10 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the NVIDIA card released on 2015-03-20 with no recorded launch MSRP.