AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is decisive. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 takes both recorded wins, with no test favoring the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 154366 against 66382 for the Quadro, a lead of 132.5%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card reaches 175422 versus 73590, a margin of 138.4%. These are not narrow victories; they represent a generational gap in raw compute throughput.

The W7800 also holds a higher overall standing in the database. Its average benchmark score of 164894 places it in the 97th percentile among all GPUs. The Quadro P6000, by contrast, averages 69986 and sits in the 90th percentile. While both are high-end workstation parts, the percentile gap shows the AMD card operating in a different performance tier entirely.

The nature of the wins matters. OpenCL and Vulkan both stress general compute and graphics pipeline efficiency. The W7800 wins both by more than double. For workloads that rely on these APIs, such as rendering, simulation, or compute offload, the data points to a clear preference for the newer AMD architecture. The Quadro P6000’s wins, if any exist, are not recorded in the database; the recorded data shows zero victories.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different eras. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, built on a 5 nm process from TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip with Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process, also from TSMC. The manufacturing node difference alone explains much of the performance gap: 5 nm versus 16 nm allows far higher transistor density and clock speeds.

Transistor counts reflect the scale of the design. The W7800 packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a density of 109.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro P6000 has 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. That is a 4.3x density advantage for the AMD chip, directly enabling its higher compute throughput.

Memory architecture also differs sharply. The W7800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256 bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X with a 384 bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s. Despite the wider bus on the NVIDIA card, the newer GDDR6 and higher effective memory clock on the AMD card (18 Gbps effective versus 9 Gbps effective) result in better bandwidth.

The W7800 introduces hardware features absent from the Pascal-era Quadro. It has 70 ray tracing cores, while the P6000 has none. The AMD card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the newer feature set on the AMD side matters for ray-traced workloads.

Power and interface also differ. The W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The AMD card requires two 8-pin power connectors; the NVIDIA card needs only one. Both have a similar TDP (260 W for AMD, 250 W for NVIDIA) and both are dual-slot, but the AMD card is slightly longer at 280 mm versus 267 mm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmarks both show massive AMD advantages. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7800 scores 154366, while the Quadro P6000 scores 66382. The delta is 132.5%, meaning the AMD card performs more than two times better in this test. For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, such as scientific simulation or video processing, this is a decisive gap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7800 scores 175422 against 73590 for the Quadro. The delta is 138.4%, even larger than the OpenCL margin. Vulkan is often used for real-time rendering and game engines, but workstation applications increasingly leverage it for compute. The higher score suggests the AMD architecture handles modern API workloads with far greater efficiency.

These results align with the cards’ raw specifications. The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro P6000 delivers 12.63 TFLOPS. That is a 3.6x difference in theoretical peak compute. The texture rate tells a similar story: 707.0 GTexel/s for AMD versus 394.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. Pixel rate also favors AMD, at 323.2 GPixel/s versus 157.9 GPixel/s.

Memory bandwidth differences compound the compute gap. The W7800’s 576.0 GB/s is about 33% higher than the Quadro’s 432.8 GB/s. Larger memory capacity (32 GB versus 24 GB) also helps with large datasets. These factors together explain why the benchmark deltas exceed even the FP32 ratio: memory and bandwidth constraints affect real-world scores more than theoretical peaks.

The Quadro P6000’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (delta -0.2%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (delta -1.2%). This shows the Quadro sits in a performance neighborhood far below the W7800. The W7800’s nearest rivals, by contrast, include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (delta -0.2%) and the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (delta -0.7%), indicating it competes with much newer and larger GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 scores 154366, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 66382. The AMD card is 132.5% ahead.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. In the database, the W7800 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro P6000 has zero recorded wins.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X. The AMD card also has higher bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro P6000 has no ray tracing cores. The W7800 has 70 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate.

Q: How do their process nodes compare?

A: The W7800 is built on a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro P6000 uses a 16 nm process from the same foundry. The W7800’s transistor density is 109.1 million per square millimeter versus 25.1 million for the Quadro.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The W7800 averages 164894 across recorded tests, placing it in the 97th percentile. The Quadro P6000 averages 69986, placing it in the 90th percentile.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 in every recorded benchmark, with margins exceeding 130%. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the W7800 is the superior choice. Its higher FP32 throughput (45.25 TFLOPS versus 12.63 TFLOPS), larger memory pool (32 GB versus 24 GB), and higher bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s) all support this conclusion.

The Quadro P6000, despite being a capable card in its own era, is now seven years older (released in 2016 versus 2023) and built on a much older process node. Its nearest rivals in the database are cards like the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile, all of which score within 1.4% of the Quadro. The W7800, by contrast, competes with the NVIDIA RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation, both of which are within 0.7% of the AMD card but none surpass it.

For users with existing Quadro P6000 deployments, the upgrade path to the W7800 is clear from a performance standpoint. The W7800 offers more than double the compute in both APIs, plus ray tracing support and a larger frame buffer. The Quadro P6000 uses a single 8-pin connector and has a slightly lower TDP (250 W versus 260 W), but the performance difference dwarfs those minor power considerations.

The production status also matters. The Quadro P6000 is marked as end-of-life, while the W7800 is active. This means driver support and availability will favor the AMD card over time. For new workstation builds, the recorded data provides no reason to choose the Quadro P6000 over the W7800.

In short, the W7800 is the faster card by every metric recorded in the database. The Quadro P6000 remains a historical product with a 90th percentile standing, but it cannot match the modern AMD architecture in raw compute, memory capacity, or feature set.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1895 MHz | 1506 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2525 MHz | 1645 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 432.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4480 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 280 | 240 |

| ROPs | 128 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 70 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 157.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 394.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 45.25 TFLOPS | 12.63 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 260 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

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

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

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

| Release Date | 2023-04-12 | 2016-09-30 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 5,999 USD |

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The W7800 uses a newer process, has more transistors, higher clocks, more memory, higher bandwidth, and more compute units. The Quadro P6000 has a wider memory bus (384 bit versus 256 bit) but that does not compensate for the slower memory type and lower effective clock. The AMD card also supports ray tracing and a newer PCIe standard. These differences explain the benchmark results and leave no ambiguity about which card is more capable in the recorded data.