AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and NVIDIA Quadro P6000 represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics, with the data revealing a generational shift in compute capabilities rather than a simple specification sheet comparison. The benchmark results show the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 winning both head-to-head tests decisively, yet the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 retains significant advantages in memory capacity and raw throughput parameters that tell a more nuanced story. The average benchmark scores place the W7600 at 87,108 against the P6000’s 69,986, a gap that underscores architectural evolution but does not completely invalidate the older card’s relevance for specific workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins in every benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison, with the largest margin appearing in the Geekbench Vulkan test where it scores 92,688 against the Quadro P6000’s 73,590, a 26% advantage. The OpenCL test shows a similar pattern with the W7600 achieving 81,528 versus 66,382, a 22.8% lead. These wins position the W7600 at the 93rd percentile among all GPUs, while the P6000 sits at the 90th percentile, suggesting that the newer card’s compute efficiency translates directly into higher synthetic workloads performance.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 claims victory in memory-centric scenarios based on the specification data, offering 24 GB of GDDR5X memory compared to the W7600’s 8 GB of GDDR6. The P6000 also delivers higher memory bandwidth at 432.8 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s, along with a wider 384-bit bus compared to the W7600’s 128-bit interface. For workloads that exceed the W7600’s memory capacity, such as large dataset processing or high-resolution texture loading, the P6000’s 24 GB frame buffer provides a clear practical advantage that synthetic benchmarks may not fully capture.

The W7600 wins on efficiency metrics, with a 130 W TDP against the P6000’s 250 W, and operates on a 6 nm process node versus the older 16 nm node. The newer card also supports PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity while the P6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, giving the W7600 a bandwidth advantage despite the narrower physical link. In terms of display outputs, the W7600 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 connections, while the P6000 provides one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.4a, making the newer card more future-proof for modern monitors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 relies on the GP102 chip using the older Pascal architecture on a 16 nm TSMC node. This process difference explains the transistor density disparity: the W7600 packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die (65.2 million per square millimeter), whereas the P6000 fits 11,800 million transistors into a much larger 471 mm² die (25.1 million per square millimeter). The smaller, denser die allows the W7600 to achieve higher clock speeds, with a boost clock of 2440 MHz versus the P6000’s 1645 MHz.

Compute resources are distributed differently across the two architectures. The P6000 has more shading units at 3,840 compared to the W7600’s 2,048, along with 240 texture mapping units and 96 ROPs versus 128 TMUs and 64 ROPs. Despite this raw resource advantage, the W7600 achieves higher FP32 performance at 19.99 TFLOPS against the P6000’s 12.63 TFLOPS, demonstrating that RDNA 3.0’s per-clock efficiency overcomes the P6000’s wider configuration. The FP16 comparison is even more stark: the W7600 delivers 39.98 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, meaning the Pascal architecture essentially lacks practical FP16 capability.

The W7600 introduces dedicated ray tracing cores (32 RT cores) that the P6000 completely lacks, a feature absent from the Pascal generation. Both cards support DirectX 12, but the W7600 implements version 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the P6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL and Vulkan support are identical at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively. The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally: the W7600 uses GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective speed, while the P6000 uses GDDR5X at 9 Gbps, but the P6000’s wider bus and larger capacity compensate for its slower per-pin speed.

The Verdict

Benchmark data clearly favors the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 for compute-heavy workloads, as it leads by 22.8% in OpenCL and 26% in Vulkan, with a higher average score (87,108 vs 69,986) and better percentile ranking (93rd vs 90th). The W7600 also offers modern features like hardware ray tracing, PCIe 4.0, and DisplayPort 2.1 that the P6000 cannot match. Its lower TDP of 130 W versus 250 W makes it easier to integrate into power-constrained systems, and its single-slot design contrasts with the P6000’s dual-slot footprint.

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 remains relevant for memory-intensive applications where its 24 GB frame buffer is indispensable. The P6000’s 432.8 GB/s bandwidth and 384-bit bus provide substantial data throughput that the W7600’s 8 GB and 288.0 GB/s cannot approach for datasets exceeding that capacity. The P6000 also has more shading units and texture units, which may benefit certain legacy workloads optimized for Pascal’s execution model. Its end-of-life production status and 2016 release date, however, mean it lacks modern API support and efficiency improvements.

For most current workstation tasks, the data suggests the W7600 is the superior choice due to its benchmark dominance and architectural advancements. The P6000’s only compelling argument is its memory capacity, which matters only in specific scenarios. Users needing large frame buffers for tasks like 8K video editing or massive 3D scenes should consider the P6000, but those prioritizing compute performance, modern connectivity, and efficiency should select the W7600.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 achieves an average benchmark score of 87,108, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 69,986, putting the W7600 approximately 24.5% ahead in overall performance.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 support ray tracing?

A: No, the Quadro P6000 does not include any ray tracing cores, whereas the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 features 32 dedicated RT cores as part of the RDNA 3.0 architecture.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 provides 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 92,688 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 26% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s score of 73,590, representing the largest benchmark gap between the two cards.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has a 130 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card is currently in production?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is marked as Active production status, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is listed as End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 achieving 81,528 points against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000’s 66,382 points, a 22.8% advantage for the newer card. This result aligns with the W7600’s higher FP32 throughput of 19.99 TFLOPS compared to the P6000’s 12.63 TFLOPS, despite the P6000 having nearly double the shading units. The OpenCL benchmark typically stresses raw compute throughput, and the W7600’s architectural efficiency on the 6 nm node clearly overcomes the P6000’s wider but older design.

The Geekbench Vulkan test produces an even larger gap, with the W7600 scoring 92,688 versus the P6000’s 73,590, a 26% delta. This result may reflect the W7600’s newer API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, which allows better utilization of modern graphics features. The P6000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, but its Pascal architecture lacks the hardware features that RDNA 3.0 brings to the table, such as dedicated ray tracing cores and enhanced async compute capabilities.

In the broader context of rival comparisons, the W7600’s nearest competitors include the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91,671 (5% higher), the RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 (4.4% higher), and the Quadro GP100 at 87,445 (0.4% lower). The P6000’s rivals are clustered closer to its score, with the Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870 (0.2% higher) and the RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (0.2% higher). This indicates that the W7600 sits in a higher performance tier than the P6000, with the latter competing against older-generation cards that share similar architectural limitations.

Specification Differences

The process node differs significantly: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses a 16 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 13,300 million for the W7600 versus 11,800 million for the P6000, with die sizes of 204 mm² and 471 mm² respectively, yielding transistor densities of 65.2M/mm² and 25.1M/mm². Clock speeds favor the W7600 with a base of 1720 MHz and boost of 2440 MHz, compared to the P6000’s 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost.

Memory configurations differ in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth: the W7600 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the P6000 has 24 GB GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s. The W7600’s memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the P6000 runs at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). The shading unit count is 2,048 for the W7600 versus 3,840 for the P6000, with TMUs at 128 versus 240, and ROPs at 64 versus 96. The W7600 includes 32 RT cores; the P6000 has none.

Power and physical specifications also diverge: the W7600 has a 130 W TDP, single-slot design, and 1x 6-pin power connector, while the P6000 has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot design, and 1x 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 300 W for the W7600 and 600 W for the P6000. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7600 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P6000. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 on the W7600 versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the P6000. The W7600 measures 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height, while the P6000 measures 267 mm and 111 mm. FP32 performance is 19.99 TFLOPS for the W7600 versus 12.63 TFLOPS for the P6000, with FP16 at 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64). Release dates are August 2023 for the W7600 and September 2016 for the P6000, with the former listed as Active and the latter as End-of-life.