AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the clear winner in raw compute benchmarks, taking both recorded tests with substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P6000 scores 66,382 against the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X's 43,810, a 51.5% advantage. The Vulkan gap is even wider: 73,590 versus 45,246, a 62.6% lead for NVIDIA. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro P6000 is the stronger card on paper.

However, the Radeon Pro W5700X has its own niche. It is built for Apple MPX systems, uses a 7 nm process with a much higher boost clock, and delivers competitive memory bandwidth despite a narrower bus. The data shows the W5700X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 75,427, a test the Quadro P6000 does not appear in. If your software targets Metal on macOS, the W5700X is the only one of these two with recorded results in that API. Benchmark results indicate the P6000 dominates cross-platform compute, but the W5700X is the sensible pick for Apple-centric workflows where Metal matters more than OpenCL or Vulkan.

Choose the Quadro P6000 if your priority is maximum OpenCL or Vulkan throughput, you need 24 GB of VRAM, or you rely on NVIDIA's Quadro ecosystem. Choose the Radeon Pro W5700X if you are building or upgrading a Mac Pro-style system, require Thunderbolt outputs, or run Metal-accelerated applications. The W5700X does trail in the two shared benchmarks, but its different interface and API coverage make it a viable alternative for a specific platform.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies. The Quadro P6000 uses NVIDIA's GP102 chip on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The die is 471 mm² and contains 11,800 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 25.1 million per mm². The W5700X uses AMD's Navi 10 chip on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 7 nm process. Its die is 251 mm² with 10,300 million transistors, resulting in a density of 41.0 million per mm². The RDNA part packs more transistors per area, but the Pascal chip is physically larger and has more total transistors.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Quadro P6000 ships with 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yet achieves 448.0 GB/s, slightly higher bandwidth thanks to faster memory clocks. The W5700X memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) for the P6000.

Compute resources also diverge. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. The W5700X has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 157.9 GPixel/s versus 130.6 GPixel/s, and texture rate favors NVIDIA at 394.8 GTexel/s versus 326.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 12.63 TFLOPS for the P6000 and 10.44 TFLOPS for the W5700X. FP16 is a stark contrast: the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the W5700X delivers 20.89 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, making it far more capable for half-precision workloads.

Power and physical specs differ as well. The P6000 has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot cooler, and draws power from a single 8-pin connector. The W5700X has a 205 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, a quad-slot cooler, and no listed power connectors, reflecting its Apple MPX integration. The P6000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the W5700X is 305 mm long. Bus interfaces are not comparable: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus Apple MPX for AMD. Display outputs also differ, with the P6000 offering 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, and the W5700X providing 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, with 12.63 TFLOPS versus 10.44 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X.

Q: Why does the W5700X have higher memory bandwidth despite a smaller bus?

A: The W5700X uses faster GDDR6 memory running at 14 Gbps effective, achieving 448.0 GB/s on a 256-bit bus. The P6000 uses GDDR5X at 9 Gbps effective on a 384-bit bus, reaching 432.8 GB/s.

Q: Is the W5700X better for half-precision compute?

A: Yes. The W5700X delivers 20.89 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the P6000 only reaches 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio.

Q: Can either card handle ray tracing?

A: No. Both cards have null entries for ray tracing cores and tensor cores.

Q: Which card is better in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The Quadro P6000 wins by a wide margin, scoring 73,590 versus 45,246, a 62.6% difference.

Q: Does the W5700X support any API that the P6000 does not appear in?

A: Yes, the W5700X has a Geekbench Metal score of 75,427. The P6000 has no recorded Metal benchmark in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification line. Process node: 16 nm for the P6000, 7 nm for the W5700X. Transistors: 11,800 million versus 10,300 million. Die size: 471 mm² versus 251 mm². Transistor density: 25.1M per mm² versus 41.0M per mm². Base clock: 1506 MHz versus 1243 MHz. Boost clock: 1645 MHz versus 2040 MHz. Memory clock: 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory size: 24 GB versus 16 GB. Memory type: GDDR5X versus GDDR6. Bus width: 384 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 432.8 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 3,840 versus 2,560. TMUs: 240 versus 160. ROPs: 96 versus 64. Pixel rate: 157.9 GPixel/s versus 130.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 394.8 GTexel/s versus 326.4 GTexel/s. FP32: 12.63 TFLOPS versus 10.44 TFLOPS. FP16: 197.4 GFLOPS versus 20.89 TFLOPS. TDP: 250 W versus 205 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus quad-slot. Power connector: 1x 8-pin versus none listed. Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 550 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Apple MPX. Display outputs: 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 4x Thunderbolt. Length: 267 mm versus 305 mm. Release date: September 30, 2016 versus December 10, 2019. Launch MSRP: 5,999 USD for the P6000, 999 USD for the W5700X.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks are shared between these cards, and the Quadro P6000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P6000 scores 66,382, the W5700X scores 43,810. The delta is 51.5% in favor of NVIDIA. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P6000 again leads with 73,590 against 45,246, a 62.6% margin. These are decisive wins, not marginal ones. The P6000's advantage in OpenCL is roughly half again the W5700X score, and in Vulkan the gap is even larger.

The W5700X does have one benchmark the P6000 lacks: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 75,427. That number is higher than the P6000's OpenCL and Vulkan scores, but since the P6000 has no Metal result, a direct comparison is not possible. The database records two wins for the P6000 and zero for the W5700X in shared tests. The percentile ranks tell a similar story: the P6000 sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the W5700X sits at the 87th.

Average benchmark scores further separate the two. The P6000 averages 69,986 across its recorded tests, placing it near rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, a 0.2% difference), NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (70,140, a 0.2% gap in the other direction), AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829, 1.2% higher), and NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, 1.4% lower). The W5700X averages 54,828, with rivals including NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54,247, 1.1% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209, 1.1% lower), AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, 1.6% higher), and AMD Radeon 8060S (55,757, 1.7% higher). The P6000's average is about 27.7% higher than the W5700X's, though the W5700X's Metal score is not included in that average.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, the two APIs that both cards support. If your application is built on either of these, the P6000 is the stronger choice by a large margin. It also offers twice the VRAM at 24 GB versus 16 GB, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The P6000 has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 throughput. It is also the only card with a DVI output, which may matter for legacy displays.

The W5700X wins where the P6000 has no presence. Its Geekbench Metal score of 75,427 is the only Metal result between the two, making it the obvious pick for macOS or Metal-only software. It also has higher memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s), a higher boost clock (2040 MHz versus 1645 MHz), and vastly superior FP16 performance (20.89 TFLOPS versus 197.4 GFLOPS). The W5700X uses less power (205 W versus 250 W) and requires a lower suggested PSU (550 W versus 600 W). Its Thunderbolt outputs and Apple MPX interface target a different ecosystem entirely.

For a PC builder focused on Windows or Linux compute, the P6000 is the data-backed pick. For a Mac Pro user who needs Metal acceleration and Thunderbolt connectivity, the W5700X is the only one of these two that fits. The P6000's launch MSRP of 5,999 USD versus the W5700X's 999 USD is a large gap, but the benchmark data shows the P6000 is also the faster card in shared tests. The W5700X is not a direct competitor in the traditional sense; it is a platform-specific alternative with its own strengths in half-precision and Apple-centric workflows.