AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly, with the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 taking both head-to-head wins over the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6800 scores 121,808 against the P6000's 66,382, a decisive 83.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6800 posts 109,961 versus 73,590, a 49.4% lead. There is no benchmark category in the database where the Quadro P6000 wins.

The W6800's wins are not marginal. The OpenCL gap of 83.5% is nearly double the Vulkan gap, suggesting that compute-heavy OpenCL workloads benefit far more from the newer architecture than graphics-oriented Vulkan tasks. If your work leans on OpenCL for rendering, simulation, or GPU compute, the W6800 is the clear pick. Vulkan still favors the W6800, but the margin is narrower, meaning the P6000 is less embarrassing in that scenario.

The P6000's only consolation is its percentile placement. It sits at the 90th percentile among all GPUs, while the W6800 reaches the 96th percentile. That 6-point gap in percentile ranking reflects the average score difference: the W6800's average benchmark score is 135,396 against the P6000's 69,986. The P6000 is not a slow card in absolute terms; it is simply outclassed by a newer, faster product.

For use-case planning, the data points to the W6800 for any application that stresses raw compute throughput. The P6000 remains usable for legacy Vulkan workloads where its 73,590 score is acceptable, but it cannot match the W6800's 109,961 in the same API. If you are building a workstation for current-generation software, the W6800 is the only rational choice based on these measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras of GPU design. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip with Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The node shrink from 16 nm to 7 nm is the fundamental driver of the performance gap, allowing the W6800 to pack far more transistors into a comparable die.

Transistor counts tell the story. The W6800 has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a density of 51.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The P6000 has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, with a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The W6800 more than doubles the transistor density, which explains its ability to sustain higher clocks and deliver more compute throughput at the same 250 W TDP.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s. The W6800 has more capacity and more bandwidth despite a narrower bus, thanks to the faster memory technology. Effective memory speed is 16 Gbps on the W6800 versus 9 Gbps on the P6000.

Clock behavior favors the W6800. Its base clock is 1575 MHz with a boost of 2322 MHz, while the P6000 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. The boost clock difference of nearly 700 MHz is substantial and directly contributes to the W6800's higher pixel rate (222.9 GPixel/s versus 157.9 GPixel/s) and texture rate (557.3 GTexel/s versus 394.8 GTexel/s).

Compute capabilities diverge sharply. The W6800 supports FP16 at 35.67 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to FP32, while the P6000 has only 197.4 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio. The W6800 also features 60 ray tracing cores, which the P6000 lacks entirely. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) on the W6800 versus 12 (12_1) on the P6000, meaning the newer card supports more modern rendering features.

Interface and output differences matter for integration. The W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the P6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. The W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the P6000 has 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards are dual-slot, both require a 600 W suggested PSU, and both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the most striking comparison in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 66,382. The 83.5% delta means the W6800 is nearly twice as fast in this workload. To put that in context, the W6800's nearest rivals in the overall database are the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (0.1% behind). The P6000's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870, which is only 0.2% behind the P6000. The W6800 sits in a performance tier roughly double that of the P6000's tier.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a smaller but still decisive gap. The W6800 scores 109,961, and the P6000 scores 73,590, a 49.4% delta. This narrower margin suggests that Vulkan's lower-level API extracts relatively more performance from the older Pascal architecture than OpenCL does. Still, a 49.4% lead is a commanding advantage, and no reasonable workload analysis would favor the P6000 here.

The average benchmark score reinforces the gap. The W6800 averages 135,396 across all recorded tests, placing it at the 96th percentile. The P6000 averages 69,986, placing it at the 90th percentile. The delta between their average scores is roughly 93%, which is consistent with the OpenCL result. The percentile difference of 6 points is smaller than the score difference, indicating that the P6000 still beats many other GPUs in the database, but it cannot touch the W6800's class.

For specific workflow planning, the OpenCL result matters most for compute-heavy tasks like scientific simulation, machine learning inference, or rendering engines that use OpenCL kernels. The Vulkan result matters for real-time graphics, game engines, and certain CAD visualization tools. In both cases, the W6800 wins, and in the compute-heavy case it wins by a landslide.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 83.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P6000's 66,382. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 win in any benchmark category?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the P6000 loses both. The win count is 2 for the AMD card and 0 for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two cards?

A: The W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 16 Gbps effective speed. The P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth and 9 Gbps effective speed. The W6800 has more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The W6800 has 51.5 million transistors per square millimeter on a 7 nm process, while the P6000 has 25.1 million per square millimeter on a 16 nm process. The W6800's density is more than double that of the P6000.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The W6800 also has 60 ray tracing cores, which the P6000 lacks.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The W6800 was released on 2021-06-07, and the P6000 was released on 2016-09-30.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 26,800 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.5M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1575 MHz | 1506 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2322 MHz | 1645 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 432.8 GB/s |

| Memory Speed | 16 Gbps effective | 9 Gbps effective |

| FP32 Performance | 17.83 TFLOPS | 12.63 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1) | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Pixel Rate | 222.9 GPixel/s | 157.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 557.3 GTexel/s | 394.8 GTexel/s |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | None |

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

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

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Height | 120 mm | 111 mm |

| Width | 50 mm | Not specified |

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

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | None | Quadro Volta |

| Launch MSRP | 2,249 USD | 5,999 USD |

The Verdict

The data makes this a straightforward recommendation. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 in every recorded benchmark, with an 83.5% lead in OpenCL and a 49.4% lead in Vulkan. The W6800 also has more memory (32 GB versus 24 GB), higher bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s), more modern architecture (RDNA 2.0 versus Pascal), and support for ray tracing cores. Its boost clock of 2322 MHz dwarfs the P6000's 1645 MHz, and its FP16 performance is in a completely different league.

The P6000 is not a bad card by historical standards; it sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs and its nearest rivals are within 1.4% of its average score. But the W6800 sits at the 96th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all newer, faster cards. The P6000's 24 GB of GDDR5X is still substantial, and its 432.8 GB/s bandwidth is adequate for many tasks. However, the W6800's 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 32 GB capacity simply outclass it.

Who should pick the W6800? Anyone running OpenCL-heavy compute workloads, modern DirectX 12 Ultimate applications, or ray-traced rendering. The 35.67 TFLOPS FP16 performance makes it suitable for AI and machine learning inference tasks that leverage half-precision math. The 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor professional setups.

Who should pick the P6000? Only those with legacy software that specifically requires Pascal-era driver behavior or DVI output, since the P6000 is the only card with a DVI connector. The 5,999 USD launch MSRP compared to the W6800's 2,249 USD launch MSRP further cements the W6800 as the superior choice, particularly when the newer card is faster in every measurable way. The P6000's only advantage is its 384-bit memory bus, but that does not translate into higher bandwidth, and its 157.9 GPixel/s pixel rate is far behind the W6800's 222.9 GPixel/s.

For practical purposes, the W6800 is a modern professional GPU that can handle current-generation workloads, while the P6000 is a legacy part that will struggle with compute-heavy tasks. The benchmark data is unambiguous: the W6800 wins every head-to-head test, and the average score difference of roughly 93% leaves no room for interpretation. If you are building or upgrading a workstation, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the card the data supports. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 remains a functional option for older software stacks, but it is not competitive on raw performance metrics.