AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 represent two distinct generations of workstation graphics, separated by nearly three years of architectural evolution. The data reveals a fascinating split: AMD's newer RDNA 2.0 card dominates in raw compute throughput, while NVIDIA's Turing-based card holds its ground in specific graphics APIs. Benchmark results show the W6800 achieving an average score of 135,396 across tests, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 6000 averages 101,872, sitting in the 94th percentile. This 33,524-point gap in average scores is substantial, yet the head-to-head results tell a more nuanced story that warrants closer examination.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking divergence appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 delivers a decisive victory. The W6800 scores 121,808 against the RTX 6000's 74,179, producing a deltaPct of 64.2% in AMD's favor. This is not a marginal win; it is a landslide. The OpenCL benchmark heavily favors the W6800's architecture, which leverages a 7 nm process node and higher boost clocks to push raw FP32 throughput to 17.83 TFLOPS versus the RTX 6000's 16.31 TFLOPS. The data suggests that for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL, the W6800 is the clear choice, outperforming its rival by nearly two-thirds.

However, the Vulkan benchmark flips the script. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564, while the W6800 manages 109,961 — a deltaPct of -15.1% from AMD's perspective. This 19,603-point advantage for NVIDIA indicates that Turing's architecture, despite being older and built on a larger 12 nm node, handles Vulkan's low-level graphics primitives more efficiently. The RTX 6000's 576 tensor cores and 72 RT cores may play a role in this result, though the benchmark itself does not isolate those features. What is clear is that API selection dramatically changes the competitive landscape, with each card claiming one decisive victory.

The average benchmark scores contextualize these individual results. The W6800's avgBenchmarkScore of 135,396 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA A10M (135,230) and RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218), while sitting 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774). This suggests the W6800 is tightly clustered with other high-end workstation cards. The RTX 6000, by contrast, sits 4.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487) and 4.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131), but trails the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750) by 4.6%. These rival comparisons show that while the W6800 competes at the very top of the stack, the RTX 6000 occupies a slightly lower tier in aggregate performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 averages 135,396 across all benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872. This represents a 33,524-point advantage for AMD, or roughly a 32.9% higher average score.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any benchmark outright?

A: Yes. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 6000 scores 129,564 versus the W6800's 109,961, a 15.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test where NVIDIA comes out ahead.

Q: How does the W6800 perform in OpenCL relative to the RTX 6000?

A: The W6800 achieves 121,808 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 64.2% higher than the RTX 6000's 74,179. This is the largest performance delta between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: What percentile does each card occupy relative to all GPUs?

A: The W6800 is in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 6000 sits in the 94th percentile. This two-percentile gap aligns with the average score difference.

Q: Are there any comparable rivals that sit between these two cards?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 averages 136,472, which is 0.8% above the W6800, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo averages 106,750, which is 4.6% above the RTX 6000. No rival in the provided data falls directly between the two cards' average scores.

Q: What do the deltaPct values against nearest rivals tell us about each card's positioning?

A: The W6800's closest rival, the NVIDIA A10M, is only 0.1% behind, indicating a very tight competitive cluster. The RTX 6000's closest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 7900M, is 4.5% behind, showing it has more breathing room over its nearest competitor.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide is evident in the process nodes. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses a 7 nm TSMC process with 26,800 million transistors packed into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, relies on a 12 nm TSMC node with 18,600 million transistors spread across a much larger 754 mm² die, achieving just 24.7 million transistors per square millimeter. This density advantage is a direct result of AMD's newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, which allows for more compute units in a smaller physical footprint.

The compute resources differ significantly in configuration. The W6800 employs 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, alongside 60 RT cores. The RTX 6000 counters with 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but adds 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores — a feature AMD's card lacks entirely. Despite having fewer shading units, the W6800 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s versus the RTX 6000's 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s. The clock speeds explain this: the W6800 boosts to 2322 MHz, while the RTX 6000 peaks at 1770 MHz.

Memory architecture also diverges. The W6800 pairs 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 16 Gbps effective. The RTX 6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 384-bit bus, achieving 672.0 GB/s at 14 Gbps effective. The RTX 6000's wider bus provides 31.3% more bandwidth, but the W6800 counters with 33.3% more memory capacity. The interface differs too: the W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RTX 6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 26,800 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1575 MHz | 1440 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2322 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 240 | 288 |

| RT Cores | 60 | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 576 |

| Pixel Rate | 222.9 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 557.3 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 17.83 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 260 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a + 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions (H) | 120 mm | 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2018-08-12 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 decisively wins in OpenCL workloads, leveraging its 64.2% performance advantage to dominate compute tasks that utilize this API. Its 32 GB memory capacity makes it better suited for large datasets that exceed the RTX 6000's 24 GB limit, and its PCIe 4.0 interface provides double the bandwidth of PCIe 3.0 for data transfers from system memory. The W6800's higher pixel and texture rates, combined with its 2322 MHz boost clock, suggest advantages in pixel-heavy rendering and texture-intensive scenes. Its 96th percentile ranking versus the RTX 6000's 94th percentile reinforces its overall compute superiority.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins in Vulkan workloads, where its 129,564 score represents a 15.1% advantage. The presence of 576 tensor cores and 72 RT cores gives it hardware features the W6800 lacks entirely, which could benefit workloads that use these specialized units — though the provided benchmarks do not isolate this. The RTX 6000's 672.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 31.3% higher than the W6800's, which may help in bandwidth-bound scenarios. Its wider 384-bit bus and higher TMU count (288 versus 240) could favor certain geometry-heavy applications. The card's 2018 release date also means it has had more time for driver optimization in professional environments.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split decision. For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the undisputed choice, offering 64.2% higher scores and a 32.9% higher average benchmark score overall. Its 32 GB memory capacity, PCIe 4.0 interface, and 96th percentile ranking make it the stronger all-around compute workhorse. The W6800 also launches at a significantly lower MSRP of 2,249 USD compared to the RTX 6000's 6,299 USD, though price comparisons should consider the three-year release gap.

However, for users whose workloads rely heavily on Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 retains a meaningful 15.1% performance edge. Its 576 tensor cores and 72 RT cores provide hardware acceleration capabilities that the W6800 cannot match, and its higher memory bandwidth may benefit specific data-intensive tasks. The RTX 6000's 94th percentile ranking, while lower than the W6800's 96th, still places it among the top tier of GPUs. Users with existing Vulkan-based pipelines or those who specifically require tensor core functionality should not dismiss this older card. Ultimately, the choice hinges on API preference and workload composition: compute-heavy OpenCL environments favor AMD, while Vulkan-centric workflows may still justify NVIDIA's older architecture.