AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, and the margins are substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7900 scores 84,379 against the Quadro P6000's 66,382, a 27.1% advantage. The Vulkan result is even more decisive: the W7900 posts 137,070, which is 86.3% higher than the P6000's 73,590. The W7900 leads in every recorded comparison, with 2 wins to 0.

The OpenCL gap of 27.1% reflects a generational leap in raw compute throughput. The W7900's FP32 rate of 61.32 TFLOPS dwarfs the P6000's 12.63 TFLOPS, and the database's own benchmark averages confirm the distance: the W7900's average score across tests is 110,725, while the P6000 averages 69,986. That difference is not incremental; it is a 58.2% advantage in average recorded performance.

The Vulkan delta of 86.3% is the standout figure. Vulkan workloads often scale with memory bandwidth and shading resources, and the W7900 brings 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 432.8 GB/s for the P6000. The W7900 also has 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 192 ROPs, against the P6000's 3,840 shaders, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Every resource multiplier favors the newer card, and the benchmark score reflects that compounding effect.

For context, the W7900 sits at the 94th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the P6000 sits at the 90th percentile. The W7900's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (average score 113,944, a 2.8% deficit for the W7900) and the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395, a 3.2% deficit). The P6000's nearest rivals are far closer in performance: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 trails by only 0.2%, and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile trails by 0.2%. In other words, the P6000 is competitive with mid-range modern mobile GPUs, while the W7900 trades blows with high-end workstation accelerators.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110,725, compared to 69,986 for the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. That is a 58.2% advantage for the W7900 in the database's recorded tests.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W7900 scores 137,070 versus 73,590 for the P6000, a delta of 86.3% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: Does the P6000 win any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head results show the W7900 winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The P6000 has zero wins in the database's comparison set.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s. The P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s. Both use a 384-bit interface, but the W7900 doubles both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The W7900 uses 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the P6000 uses 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. The W7900's transistor density is 109.1M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm² for the P6000.

Q: Which card has the higher FP16 throughput?

A: The W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio with FP32). The P6000 delivers 197.4 GFLOPS FP16, which is a 1:64 ratio relative to its FP32 throughput. The W7900's FP16 capability is orders of magnitude higher.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to completely different design eras. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, using the Navi 31 chip with the codename Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, specifically the Navi III Series. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC, and the die measures 529 mm². The transistor count is 57,700 million, yielding a density of 109.1M per mm².

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is a Pascal architecture product, using the GP102 chip. It belongs to the Quadro Pascal generation (labeled Px000). The process node is 16 nm at TSMC, with a die size of 471 mm² and 11,800 million transistors. The density is 25.1M per mm². The manufacturing process alone explains much of the performance difference: a 5 nm node versus 16 nm, allowing the W7900 to pack nearly five times the transistors into a similar physical footprint.

The W7900 includes 96 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the P6000. The P6000 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, and its Pascal architecture predates the hardware ray tracing era. The W7900 also lists no tensor cores, so both cards rely on traditional shader-based compute for AI workloads, but the W7900's FP16 capability means it can process such workloads far more efficiently.

The FP16 ratio is a stark architectural differentiator. The W7900 performs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it can process half-precision data at the same rate as full precision. The P6000 performs FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, a severe penalty that makes half-precision compute essentially impractical. This alone shifts the W7900 into a different class for scientific and machine learning tasks that leverage FP16.

The display outputs also differ by generation. The W7900 offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The W7900 supports the newer DisplayPort standard, while the P6000 includes a legacy DVI port for older displays.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7900 | 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 | 1760 MHz | 1506 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2495 MHz | 1645 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 48 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 864.0 GB/s | 432.8 GB/s |

| Shading units | 6144 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 384 | 240 |

| ROPs | 192 | 96 |

| RT cores | 96 | None |

| Pixel rate | 479.0 GPixel/s | 157.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 958.1 GTexel/s | 394.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.32 TFLOPS | 12.63 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 295 W | 250 W |

| Slot width | Triple-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2023-05-25 | 2016-09-30 |

The W7900 leads in every compute specification except power draw and physical size. The P6000 consumes 250 W versus 295 W for the W7900, and the P6000 is a dual-slot card while the W7900 requires a triple-slot cooler. Both cards list a suggested PSU of 600 W, so system power requirements are unchanged despite the performance gap.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7900 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the P6000. Both are x16, but the newer standard doubles the theoretical bandwidth available to the card.

The DirectX support also differs. The W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2), which includes hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders. The P6000 supports DirectX 12 (feature level 12_1), which lacks those newer features. OpenGL and Vulkan versions are identical at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion for anyone choosing between these two cards: the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is the superior accelerator by every measured metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (110,725 versus 69,986), and belongs to a newer architectural generation with dramatically higher compute throughput.

The W7900 is 27.1% ahead in OpenCL and 86.3% ahead in Vulkan. Its FP32 rate of 61.32 TFLOPS is 4.9 times the P6000's 12.63 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 864.0 GB/s is exactly double the P6000's 432.8 GB/s. Its 48 GB of GDDR6 memory is double the P6000's 24 GB of GDDR5X. Every specification comparison favors the W7900.

The P6000's only advantages are physical: it consumes 45 W less power (250 W versus 295 W), occupies a dual-slot form factor instead of triple-slot, and requires a single 8-pin power connector rather than two. For systems with strict power or space constraints, the P6000 is the more manageable card. But those are minor logistical considerations against a performance deficit that ranges from 27.1% to 86.3% in the recorded tests.

The production status confirms the generational shift. The W7900 is listed as Active, released in May 2023, with a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD. The P6000 is End-of-life, released in September 2016, with a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. The P6000's successor is the Quadro Volta, and the W7900's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega.

Anyone who needs maximum compute performance, large memory capacity, or modern API support should choose the W7900. Anyone who needs a legacy card for compatibility with older systems or who has strict power and space limits might consider the P6000, but the benchmark data offers no performance reason to do so.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in: OpenCL compute workloads, where it leads by 27.1%. Vulkan rendering and compute, where it leads by 86.3%. FP16-heavy tasks such as machine learning inference and scientific simulation, thanks to its 1:1 FP16 ratio versus the P6000's 1:64 penalty. Memory-bound workloads that need more than 24 GB of VRAM, as the W7900 offers 48 GB. High-resolution rendering and texture-heavy scenes, where its 958.1 GTexel/s texture rate and 479.0 GPixel/s pixel rate far exceed the P6000's 394.8 GTexel/s and 157.9 GPixel/s. Ray-traced workloads, since the W7900 has 96 dedicated RT cores and the P6000 has none.

NVIDIA Quadro P6000 wins in: Power-constrained environments, consuming 250 W versus 295 W. Compact chassis, with a dual-slot design versus the W7900's triple-slot cooler. Systems with limited power connector availability, since it needs one 8-pin connector rather than two. Older software environments that rely on DVI output, as the P6000 includes 1x DVI alongside its DisplayPort outputs. Budget-sensitive builds that prioritize lower operational power draw over peak performance.

The benchmark data does not show a single test where the P6000 outperforms the W7900. Its wins are entirely in physical characteristics and legacy compatibility. For pure performance, the W7900 is the definitive choice. For minimal power and footprint, the P6000 retains a niche role in older workstation deployments where its Pascal architecture is already integrated into existing pipelines.