AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between these two workstation cards, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scored 121,808 points against 87,445 for the NVIDIA Quadro GP100. That is a 39.3% advantage for the AMD card, a substantial margin that separates the two in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader database context, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800's average benchmark score of 135,396 places it at the 96th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are clustered tightly around it: the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (0.8% ahead). This tells you the W6800 sits in a highly competitive band where a few points separate cards, yet it still holds its ground against newer generation silicon.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 tells a different story. Its average benchmark score is 87,445, which lands it at the 93rd percentile. The nearest rivals here show a wider spread: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 87,108 (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85,637 (2.1% behind), while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 (4% ahead) and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91,671 (4.6% ahead) pull away from it. So the GP100 is not a weak card by any means, but it is clearly a step down in absolute compute performance from the W6800.

The gap between the two cards in OpenCL is not a marginal one. A 39.3% delta means the W6800 completes compute workloads in roughly 72% of the time the GP100 needs, assuming the workload scales linearly. For rendering, simulation, or any OpenCL-accelerated task, that difference will be visible in everyday use, not just in synthetic benchmarks. The W6800 also has additional benchmark data in Geekbench Metal (174,420) and Vulkan (109,961), though the GP100 lacks comparable entries in those tests, so no direct cross-format comparison is possible from the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is significant, spanning process technology, memory design, and feature support. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip on the older Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm TSMC process. It contains 15,300 million transistors on a larger 610 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The node advantage is clear: AMD fits significantly more transistors into a smaller area, which directly contributes to the performance gap.

Memory is another major point of divergence. The W6800 carries 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GP100 features 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, which gives it a higher bandwidth of 732.2 GB/s. This is an interesting trade-off: the GP100 has 43% more memory bandwidth, but only half the capacity. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound, the GP100's HBM2 advantage could matter. For capacity-hungry tasks like large datasets or multi-application workflows, the W6800's 32 GB is the clear winner. The W6800's memory runs at 16 Gbps effective, while the GP100's runs at 1430 Mbps effective, though the bus width differences make raw clock comparisons less meaningful.

The compute resources tell a more nuanced story. The W6800 has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. It also includes 60 ray tracing cores, a feature the GP100 lacks entirely. The GP100 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores on either card. In terms of raw throughput, the W6800 outputs 17.83 TFLOPS FP32, 35.67 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), 222.9 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 557.3 GTexel/s texture rate. The GP100 outputs 10.34 TFLOPS FP32, 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), 138.5 GPixel/s, and 323.2 GTexel/s. The W6800 is ahead in every measured rate category, often by more than 60%.

Feature support also differs. The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W6800 also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GP100 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. The GP100 does offer a DVI output alongside four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the W6800 provides six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both cards are dual-slot designs, but the W6800 requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup with a 600 W suggested PSU, while the GP100 needs only a single 8-pin with a 550 W suggested PSU. The W6800's TDP is 250 W versus 235 W for the GP100, a modest difference given the performance gap.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the choice is straightforward for most users. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 39.3% in OpenCL, holds a 96th percentile ranking versus 93rd for the GP100, and offers more than double the memory capacity. It is also a newer card by release date, launching in 2021 compared to the GP100's 2016 debut.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 does retain one meaningful advantage: memory bandwidth. At 732.2 GB/s, it exceeds the W6800's 512.0 GB/s by a significant margin. For workloads that are purely bandwidth-bound, such as certain data processing or simulation tasks, the GP100 could still hold its own. However, the GP100's 16 GB capacity is half of what the W6800 provides, which limits its practical use with large working sets.

The GP100 also has a lower TDP at 235 W versus 250 W, and a simpler power connector requirement. If your system has a limited PSU, the GP100 is less demanding. But the W6800's performance lead in compute throughput is so large that it overcomes these minor operational differences.

For most compute-heavy professional workloads, the W6800 is the better choice. It is faster, has more memory, supports newer APIs, and includes ray tracing hardware. The GP100 is a legacy card with a bandwidth advantage that only matters in narrow scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every key specification category. The W6800 uses a 7 nm process versus 16 nm for the GP100. Transistor count is 26,800 million versus 15,300 million. Die size is 520 mm² versus 610 mm². Transistor density is 51.5M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm².

Clock speeds: W6800 base clock is 1575 MHz and boost is 2322 MHz. GP100 base is 1304 MHz and boost is 1443 MHz. Memory clocks: W6800 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, GP100 runs at 715 MHz with 1430 Mbps effective.

Memory: W6800 has 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. GP100 has 16 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 732.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: W6800 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 RT cores. GP100 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no RT cores. Neither has tensor cores.

Throughput rates: W6800 achieves 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s, versus 138.5 GPixel/s and 323.2 GTexel/s for the GP100. FP32 is 17.83 TFLOPS versus 10.34 TFLOPS. FP16 is 35.67 TFLOPS versus 20.69 TFLOPS.

Power and connectivity: W6800 TDP is 250 W with a 600 W suggested PSU and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. GP100 TDP is 235 W with a 550 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs: W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, GP100 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support: W6800 has DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. GP100 has DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3.

Dimensions: both are 267 mm long and dual-slot. W6800 is 120 mm tall and 50 mm wide. GP100 is 111 mm tall, width not recorded. Release dates: W6800 on June 7, 2021; GP100 on September 30, 2016. The W6800's launch MSRP was 2,249 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scored 121,808 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 39.3% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro GP100's 87,445.

Q: Does the GP100 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The GP100 provides 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth from its HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, while the W6800 provides 512.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2. The W6800 offers double the capacity.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: Only the W6800 has ray tracing cores, with 60 RT cores included. The GP100 has no RT cores.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W6800 has a 250 W TDP and needs a 600 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The GP100 has a 235 W TDP and needs a 550 W suggested PSU with a single 8-pin connector.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 39.3% OpenCL lead. It also wins decisively in memory capacity, offering 32 GB versus 16 GB, which matters for large datasets, complex scenes, or running multiple applications simultaneously. The W6800's newer architecture provides ray tracing support, DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and PCIe 4.0, all of which the GP100 lacks. Its higher shading unit count, TMU count, and clock speeds translate to better pixel and texture rates. The W6800 is also smaller in die size despite having more transistors, indicating better manufacturing efficiency.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 732.2 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. This could benefit workloads that saturate memory bandwidth, such as certain large-scale data transfers or specific simulation tasks. The GP100 also has a slightly lower TDP at 235 W versus 250 W, and a simpler power connection requirement with a single 8-pin. Its 93rd percentile ranking, while lower than the W6800's 96th, still places it in the upper tier of all GPUs, so it is not a weak card in absolute terms.

For most users, the W6800 is the recommended pick. Its compute advantage, double memory capacity, and modern feature set make it the more versatile and future-proof option. The GP100 is only preferable in niche bandwidth-sensitive scenarios where its higher memory throughput can compensate for its lower raw compute and half the memory capacity.