AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data from the database presents a decisive picture: the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 in both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 against 66,382 for the Quadro P6000, a commanding 63.1% lead. The Vulkan test widens the gap further, with the W7700 posting 129,706 versus 73,590, a 76.3% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap in raw compute throughput.

The average benchmark score reinforces this dominance. The Radeon PRO W7700 averages 118,976 across its tested workloads, while the Quadro P6000 averages 69,986, a difference of roughly 70%. In terms of overall GPU percentile ranking, the W7700 sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the P6000 rests at the 90th, indicating that the newer card competes in a higher performance tier despite the older card's once-flagship status.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards explains the benchmark results. The Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die. That translates to a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². In contrast, the Quadro P6000 relies on the GP102 chip on a 16 nm process, with 11,800 million transistors spread across a larger 471 mm² die, yielding just 25.1 million transistors per mm². The density advantage is stark, and it enables the W7700 to deliver far higher performance within a lower power envelope.

The Radeon PRO W7700 employs RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi series. It features 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 96 raster operation units, and 48 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Quadro P6000, by contrast, uses the older Pascal architecture with 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but it lacks ray tracing cores entirely. Despite having fewer shading units, the W7700's higher clocks and architectural efficiency flip the performance balance: its base clock runs at 1900 MHz with a boost of 2600 MHz, while the P6000 is locked to 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The W7700 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P6000 counters with 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 432.8 GB/s. The W7700's memory clock runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) for the P6000. This gives the newer card a significant bandwidth advantage, which directly benefits compute-heavy and texture-intensive workloads.

Other key differences include the W7700's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the P6000's PCIe 3.0 x16, and the W7700's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, compared to the P6000's DirectX 12 (12_1) and a mix of 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the W7700 adds modern feature parity with the latest API standards. The W7700 also draws less power, with a 190 W TDP versus 250 W for the P6000, and requires a 450 W suggested PSU against the P6000's 600 W. Physically, the W7700 is shorter at 241 mm (9.5 inches) compared to the P6000's 267 mm (10.5 inches), though both are dual-slot designs with a single 8-pin power connector and identical height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every measured category. Its 63.1% OpenCL advantage and 76.3% Vulkan lead indicate that it is the superior choice for general-purpose compute, rendering, and any workload that leverages Vulkan's low-level access to the GPU. The W7700 also holds a clear edge in pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s versus 157.9 GPixel/s) and texture rate (499.2 GTexel/s versus 394.8 GTexel/s), making it faster for rasterization-heavy tasks like viewport rendering and simulation previews.

The Quadro P6000, however, retains a few practical advantages. Its 24 GB memory capacity is larger than the W7700's 16 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed 16 GB, such as massive 3D scenes, large-scale scientific simulations, or machine learning inference with big models. Its 384-bit bus also provides a wider memory path, though the lower effective bandwidth limits the benefit. For users with legacy PCIe 3.0 systems, the P6000's interface is a match, whereas the W7700 would be bottlenecked by an older motherboard. Additionally, the P6000's 1x DVI output could be useful for connecting to older displays or specialized equipment that lacks DisplayPort support.

For pure compute throughput, the W7700's FP32 performance of 31.95 TFLOPS dwarfs the P6000's 12.63 TFLOPS, making it roughly 2.5x faster for single-precision workloads. The FP16 comparison is even more lopsided: the W7700 delivers 63.90 TFLOPS (with 2:1 ratio), while the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS (with 1:64 ratio), a gap of over 300x. This makes the W7700 vastly more capable for AI inference and half-precision compute, while the P6000 is effectively unusable for modern FP16-heavy tasks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the faster card in every benchmark recorded. It offers a 63.1% lead in OpenCL and a 76.3% lead in Vulkan, along with higher pixel and texture rates, superior FP32 and FP16 throughput, and nearly double the memory bandwidth. Its 5 nm process and RDNA 3.0 architecture deliver these gains while consuming 60 W less power and requiring a smaller PSU. For any workload that prioritizes compute performance, modern API support, or energy efficiency, the W7700 is the clear choice.

The Quadro P6000, however, is not without merit. Its 24 GB memory capacity remains relevant for memory-bound tasks that cannot fit within 16 GB, and its PCIe 3.0 interface ensures compatibility with older platforms. As an end-of-life product, it also benefits from maturity and driver stability. But the benchmark results show that it trails the W7700 by a wide margin in raw performance, and its Pascal architecture lacks ray tracing cores and modern DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

For users upgrading from a Pascal-era workstation, the W7700 represents a massive performance uplift, as evidenced by the delta percentages. For those with specific memory capacity needs that exceed 16 GB, the P6000's larger pool might still justify its use, but only if the performance deficit is acceptable. In all other cases, the Radeon PRO W7700 is the superior workstation GPU according to the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 versus 66,382 for the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, a 63.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 scores 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Quadro P6000 scores 73,590, giving the W7700 a 76.3% lead.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 have more memory than the Radeon PRO W7700?

A: Yes, the P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6. However, the W7700's bandwidth is higher at 576.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process with 28,100 million transistors, while the Quadro P6000 uses Pascal on a 16 nm process with 11,800 million transistors. The W7700 also features 48 ray tracing cores, which the P6000 lacks.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 performance?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 12.63 TFLOPS for the Quadro P6000.

Q: Is the Radeon PRO W7700 more power-efficient?

A: Yes, the W7700 has a 190 W TDP and a suggested 450 W PSU, while the P6000 has a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W PSU.