AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the average benchmark score of the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19030, while the Radeon PRO W7500 averages 16415. The K6000 is ahead by roughly 15.9% across all recorded workloads.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58213 against the K6000's 23749, a 59.2% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon PRO W7500 also dominates Vulkan. It scores 68634 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to 25409 for the Quadro K6000, translating to a 63% lead for the W7500.

Q: How do their percentile rankings among all GPUs differ?

A: The Quadro K6000 sits at the 63rd percentile, while the Radeon PRO W7500 is at the 59th percentile. Despite the W7500 winning both head-to-head tests, the K6000 ranks slightly higher across the broader database.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is end-of-life, released on July 22, 2013. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is active, with a release date of August 2, 2023.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and AMD Radeon PRO W7500 represent two fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The K6000 uses the GK110B chip built on Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC at 28 nm. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The W7500, in contrast, uses Navi 33 silicon based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, also from TSMC but at 6 nm. This newer process allows 13,300 million transistors in just 204 mm², a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter, over five times higher.

Clock speeds show a similar generational shift. The K6000 runs at a base of 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz. The W7500 operates at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, nearly double the K6000's boost clock. Memory clocking also diverges: the K6000 uses 1502 MHz GDDR5, effectively 6 Gbps, while the W7500 uses 2000 MHz GDDR6, effectively 16 Gbps.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. While the K6000 has more shading units and TMUs, the W7500 counters with more ROPs and adds 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Kepler-based K6000. Neither card includes tensor cores.

Feature support reflects their respective generations. The K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs also differ: the K6000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the W7500 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

Power and physical specifications are starkly different. The K6000 has a TDP of 225 W, requires 2x 6-pin power connectors, and a suggested 550 W PSU. It is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm long and 111 mm high. The W7500 has a TDP of just 70 W, requires no power connectors, and only a suggested 250 W PSU. It is a single-slot card at 216 mm long, 115 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The W7500 also uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the K6000 produces a score of 23749, while the W7500 reaches 58213. The delta percentage is 59.2% in favor of the W7500. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the W7500 delivers more than double the OpenCL compute throughput of the older NVIDIA card. The W7500's higher clock speeds, newer architecture, and much higher FP32 rate of 12.19 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS for the K6000 help explain this gap.

The second head-to-head test is Geekbench Vulkan. The K6000 scores 25409, and the W7500 scores 68634. The delta is 63% favoring the W7500, an even larger margin than in OpenCL. Vulkan is a modern API, and the K6000's older Kepler architecture with Vulkan 1.2.175 support appears to be at a significant disadvantage compared to the W7500's RDNA 3.0 implementation with Vulkan 1.4. The W7500 also has ray tracing cores, which the K6000 lacks, and this may contribute to the gap in Vulkan workloads.

Despite losing both head-to-head tests, the K6000 has a higher average benchmark score overall: 19030 versus 16415 for the W7500. This seems contradictory until considering the benchmark sets. The K6000's average is based on three Geekbench subtests: Metal (7932), OpenCL (23749), and Vulkan (25409). The W7500's average includes nine tests, many of which are Passmark subtests that score much lower on an absolute scale, such as Passmark DirectX 9 at 200, DirectX 11 at 125, and DirectX 12 at 46. These low scores drag down the W7500's average, even though its Geekbench results are far superior.

The K6000's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6600 with an average score of 19036 (0% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049 (-0.1%), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m at 19089 (-0.3%), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation at 18954 (0.4%). The W7500's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16408 (0% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16361 (0.3%), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M at 16351 (0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 at 16504 (-0.5%). These rival groups reflect where each card sits in the overall performance distribution, with the K6000 grouping near mid-range modern consumer cards and the W7500 grouping near older high-end cards.

The K6000's percentile of 63 versus the W7500's 59 means the K6000 outperforms a slightly larger fraction of all GPUs in the database. This is likely because the K6000's three Geekbench scores are all relatively strong, while the W7500's Passmark results, particularly the DirectX subtests, are very low, pulling its aggregate position down.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for compute-intensive professional workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the superior choice for OpenCL and Vulkan applications. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 59.2% higher than the K6000's, and its Vulkan score is 63% higher. For users running modern GPU compute tasks, whether in rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, the W7500 offers dramatically better performance. Its 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 rate, more than double the K6000's 5.196 TFLOPS, supports this advantage. Additionally, the W7500's 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the K6000 cannot offer, making it the only option for ray-traced workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 retains some appeal in legacy scenarios. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory exceeds the W7500's 8 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed the smaller frame buffer. The K6000 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, though its 288.4 GB/s bandwidth is only modestly higher than the W7500's 256.0 GB/s. For older software that predates modern API revisions, the K6000's Kepler architecture may have more mature driver support, though the database does not record such compatibility data.

Considering average benchmark scores, the K6000 leads with 19030 versus 16415, a 15.9% advantage. However, this metric is skewed by the inclusion of low-scoring Passmark subtests in the W7500's result set. Users should weigh the specific workloads they run. For OpenCL and Vulkan, the W7500 is unequivocally faster. For general-purpose use where the average score is representative, the K6000 holds the edge.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The W7500's 70 W TDP is less than a third of the K6000's 225 W. The W7500 requires no external power connectors and a 250 W PSU, while the K6000 needs 2x 6-pin connectors and a 550 W PSU. For multi-GPU workstations or systems with limited power delivery, the W7500 is far easier to integrate. Its single-slot design at 216 mm length also fits in more chassis than the K6000's dual-slot 267 mm footprint.

The production status is decisive for new purchases. The K6000 is end-of-life, released in 2013, while the W7500 is active, released in 2023. Any organization buying new hardware should choose the W7500 unless it specifically requires the K6000's 12 GB memory capacity or has software locked to Kepler-era features. The K6000's launch MSRP was 5,265 USD, while the W7500's launch MSRP was 429 USD, but the database records no current pricing, so relative cost today is not captured.

In summary, the Radeon PRO W7500 wins on raw modern compute performance, efficiency, and feature set. The Quadro K6000 wins on average database score, memory capacity, and memory bus width. Professional users prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan throughput should select the W7500. Users with legacy software requirements or needing more than 8 GB of memory might still consider the K6000, assuming availability of end-of-life hardware.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 | AMD Radeon PRO W7500 |

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

| Chip | GK110B | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 7,080 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 561 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 797 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2880 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 240 | 112 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 54.12 GPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 216.5 GTexel/s | 190.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.196 TFLOPS | 12.19 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 225 W | 70 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | 216 mm x 115 mm x 20 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2023-08-02 |