AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 over the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 in the two shared tests, making it the superior choice for compute workloads in this comparison. The AMD card wins both head-to-head benchmarks with decisive margins, despite the NVIDIA card’s much larger memory pool and higher raw FP32 throughput. This outcome hinges on architectural efficiency and software optimization rather than brute hardware specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Radeon PRO W6600 dominates the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 73,514 against the Quadro P6000’s 66,382. That is a 10.7% advantage, a substantial gap in a compute API where NVIDIA traditionally has a strong foothold. The OpenCL result is particularly telling because the Quadro P6000, with 12.63 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, should theoretically outpace the Radeon’s 9.247 TFLOPS. The fact that the opposite occurs indicates that the Radeon’s RDNA 2 architecture extracts far more real-world work per FLOP in this workload.

The Vulkan test reinforces the same conclusion, with the Radeon PRO W6600 posting 78,428 points versus 73,590 for the Quadro P6000. The 6.6% delta is smaller than in OpenCL but still a clear win. Notably, the Radeon’s Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, while the Quadro’s Vulkan result is only marginally better than its OpenCL result. This suggests the Radeon’s driver and hardware handle modern, low-level graphics APIs more efficiently.

Across the two shared benchmarks, the Radeon PRO W6600 wins 2 out of 2, with no benchmark favoring the Quadro P6000. The average benchmark score for the Radeon is 81,995, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro’s average of 69,986 puts it in the 90th percentile. That 17.2% difference in average score is consistent with the individual test results. The Radeon’s closest rivals include the Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.3% behind), the GeForce RTX 5090 (2.7% behind), and two Tesla P100 variants (3.0% and 3.3% behind). The Quadro P6000’s nearest rival is the Radeon Pro WX 8200, which is only 0.2% slower, meaning the Quadro is barely above that competitor.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W6600 wins in every measured benchmark category, so the use-case split is straightforward: for any workload relying on Geekbench’s OpenCL or Vulkan compute paths, the AMD card is the faster option. OpenCL performance is critical for professional applications like rendering, simulation, and scientific computing, and the Radeon’s 10.7% lead here makes it the default recommendation for those tasks. Vulkan is increasingly used in real-time visualization and game engines, and the 6.6% advantage in that API gives the Radeon an edge in interactive viewport work.

The Quadro P6000’s only potential advantage lies in areas not covered by these benchmarks. It has 24 GB of memory versus 8 GB, and a 432.8 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s. For datasets that exceed 8 GB, the Quadro would be the only viable choice, but the benchmark data does not include such a test. Similarly, the Quadro’s higher FP32 throughput (12.63 TFLOPS) and texture rate (394.8 GTexel/s) do not translate into wins in the measured workloads. The Quadro also has more shading units (3,840 vs. 1,792) and TMUs (240 vs. 112), yet it loses both compute tests, highlighting that architectural efficiency trumps raw counts in these specific benchmarks.

For a professional user prioritizing raw compute speed in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Radeon PRO W6600 is the unambiguous winner. For a user needing massive memory capacity for large models or high-resolution textures, the Quadro P6000’s 24 GB is its only clear justification, but that advantage is not reflected in any benchmark score in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Radeon PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die. The Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip on TSMC’s 16 nm process, with 11,800 million transistors on a much larger 471 mm² die. The Radeon achieves a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm², nearly double the Quadro’s 25.1 million per mm², which explains its efficiency advantage.

The Radeon is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, which includes 28 ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Quadro is Pascal architecture, which has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). This is a fundamental generational gap: RDNA 2.0 is designed for modern graphics features, while Pascal is a legacy architecture. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the Radeon’s newer instruction set and memory management give it a compute advantage.

Clock speeds also differ drastically. The Radeon runs at a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost clock of 2580 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. The Radeon’s higher clocks, combined with its 7 nm process, allow it to achieve higher performance per watt. The Radeon’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro’s memory runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) on a 384-bit bus. The Quadro’s wider bus gives it 432.8 GB/s bandwidth, but the Radeon’s faster clock speed compensates somewhat with 224.0 GB/s.

FP16 performance is another stark contrast. The Radeon delivers 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro delivers only 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). This makes the Radeon vastly superior for workloads that can leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as AI inference and certain rendering techniques. The Quadro’s FP16 performance is a rounding error compared to the Radeon’s.

Power and physical design also differ. The Radeon has a TDP of 100 W with a single-slot cooler and one 6-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W PSU. The Quadro has a TDP of 250 W, a dual-slot cooler, one 8-pin connector, and needs a 600 W PSU. The Radeon is also shorter at 241 mm versus 267 mm. These differences make the Radeon far easier to integrate into compact systems, while the Quadro demands more power and space.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is the faster card in every benchmark measured. It wins OpenCL by 10.7% and Vulkan by 6.6%, and its average benchmark score is 17.2% higher than the Quadro P6000’s. The Radeon’s 92nd percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 90th percentile confirms its overall superiority. For any user running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Radeon PRO W6600 is the clear choice.

The Quadro P6000’s only defense is its 24 GB memory capacity and higher memory bandwidth. If a workload requires more than 8 GB of VRAM, the Quadro is the only option between these two. However, the benchmark data does not capture that scenario, and for the tests that were run, the Quadro loses both. The Quadro’s launch MSRP is 5,999 USD, while the Radeon’s is 649 USD, but pricing is not a factor in performance recommendations.

Users should pick the Radeon PRO W6600 for compute-intensive tasks, modern API support, and lower power requirements. Users should pick the Quadro P6000 only if they absolutely need 24 GB of memory or the wider 384-bit memory bus, accepting its slower compute performance and higher power draw. The Radeon’s newer architecture, higher clocks, and ray tracing support make it the better long-term investment in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has an average benchmark score of 81,995, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 averages 69,986, a difference of roughly 17%.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon PRO W6600 in OpenCL?

A: The Radeon scores 73,514 compared to the Quadro’s 66,382, giving the AMD card a 10.7% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. In the two shared benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), the Quadro P6000 loses both, with the Radeon winning 2 out of 2 head-to-head tests.

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

A: The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the Radeon PRO W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory. The Quadro also has a wider 384-bit bus versus the Radeon’s 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 includes 28 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has no ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Radeon PRO W6600 has a TDP of 100 W and needs a 300 W PSU with a single 6-pin connector. The Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W, requires a 600 W PSU, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6600 | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 7 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2331 MHz | 1506 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2580 MHz | 1645 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 432.8 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1,792 | 3,840 |

| TMUs | 112 | 240 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 9.247 TFLOPS | 12.63 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Pixel Rate | 165.1 GPixel/s | 157.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 289.0 GTexel/s | 394.8 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 100 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2016-09-30 |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | 5,999 USD |