AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results show a decisive win for the older NVIDIA card. The Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, while the Radeon Pro WX 2100 manages 8,536. That is a 15.3% lead for the Quadro 6000, which is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload. For context, the Quadro 6000 sits just 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832) and 0.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803). The Radeon Pro WX 2100, meanwhile, is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645) but 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665).

The raw numbers tell a clear story: the Quadro 6000’s FP32 throughput of 1,027.7 GFLOPS is lower than the WX 2100’s 1,248.3 GFLOPS, yet the older card still wins the OpenCL test. This suggests that raw compute specifications do not translate directly into benchmark performance. The Quadro 6000’s memory subsystem—6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth—provides a massive advantage over the WX 2100’s 2 GB on a 64-bit bus with 48.00 GB/s. That 3x bandwidth difference likely explains why the Quadro 6000 outperforms despite lower theoretical FP32.

The deltaPct values in the rival lists further contextualize the gap. The Quadro 6000’s nearest rival, the Quadro M2000M, is only 0.1% behind, meaning the Quadro 6000 is essentially at parity with that mobile workstation card. The Radeon Pro WX 2100’s nearest rival, the Quadro P4000, is 0.1% ahead of it. So while both cards occupy similar overall performance percentiles—47th for the Quadro 6000 and 46th for the WX 2100—the head-to-head result shows the Quadro 6000 has a clear edge in this specific test.

There is no Vulkan benchmark for the Quadro 6000, as the FACT PACK lists no Vulkan API support for it. The Radeon Pro WX 2100 does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770, but without a comparable result from the NVIDIA card, that number cannot be used for a direct comparison. Similarly, the WX 2100 has no additional OpenCL results beyond the single 8,536 score, and the Quadro 6000 has no other benchmarks listed. The data available is limited to one head-to-head test, and the Quadro 6000 wins it outright.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the only shared test, and it does so by a meaningful 15.3% margin. If your priority is raw OpenCL compute performance as measured by Geekbench, the Quadro 6000 is the stronger choice, despite being released in December 2010 versus the Radeon Pro WX 2100’s June 2017 release. The Quadro 6000’s 47th percentile versus the WX 2100’s 46th percentile reinforces this—it is not a huge overall ranking gap, but the head-to-head delta is significant.

However, the Radeon Pro WX 2100 is not without arguments in its favor, strictly from the data. It has a lower TDP (35 W vs. 204 W), a smaller physical footprint (168 mm length vs. 248 mm), and a single-slot design versus the Quadro 6000’s dual-slot. It also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. If your workload depends on modern API features, the WX 2100 is the more future-proof option, even if it loses the compute benchmark.

The launch MSRP for the Quadro 6000 is 4,399 USD. The launch MSRP for the Radeon Pro WX 2100 is 149 USD. Those figures are stated for reference only; the data shows a 15.3% performance advantage for the Quadro 6000, but the WX 2100 offers a dramatically lower entry point and far lower power requirements. For a builder prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL, the Quadro 6000 is the data-backed pick. For anyone needing a low-power, single-slot card with modern API support, the WX 2100 has clear practical advantages.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins in raw compute performance, as demonstrated by its 9,846 Geekbench OpenCL score versus the WX 2100’s 8,536. It also wins on memory capacity (6 GB vs. 2 GB), memory bus width (384-bit vs. 64-bit), and memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s vs. 48.00 GB/s). For tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound—large data sets, multi-layered textures, or high-resolution compute buffers—the Quadro 6000’s memory subsystem gives it a structural advantage that the benchmark confirms.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 wins on power efficiency and physical design. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro 6000’s 204 W, and it requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 6000 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin. The suggested PSU is 200 W for the WX 2100 versus 550 W for the Quadro 6000. The WX 2100 is also shorter (168 mm vs. 248 mm) and single-slot, which matters for compact builds or dense multi-GPU configurations. It also wins on modern API support: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the Quadro 6000’s 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.3 versus no Vulkan support at all.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the WX 2100 actually has a higher FP32 number (1,248.3 GFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (39.01 GTexel/s vs. 32.14 GTexel/s), but the benchmark shows the Quadro 6000 wins the OpenCL test anyway. The WX 2100 also supports FP16 at 1:1 ratio (1,248.3 GFLOPS), while the Quadro 6000 has no FP16 listed. If your workload uses FP16 extensively, the WX 2100 has a theoretical advantage, but no benchmark data confirms it against the Quadro 6000.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, which is 15.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100’s 8,536.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 2100 have any benchmark advantage?

A: It has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,770, but the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan benchmark or Vulkan API support listed, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the WX 2100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro 6000’s bandwidth is 143.4 GB/s versus 48.00 GB/s for the WX 2100.

Q: Which card has lower power requirements?

A: The Radeon Pro WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP, needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The WX 2100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The WX 2100 also supports Vulkan 1.3; the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the cards compare in overall GPU ranking?

A: The Quadro 6000 is in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, and the WX 2100 is in the 46th percentile. The Quadro 6000’s average benchmark score is 9,846, while the WX 2100’s average is 9,653.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural eras. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip on the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 uses the Lexa chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm²—over 3.6 times the density of the Fermi chip.

The memory architectures diverge sharply. The Quadro 6000 has a 384-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR5, while the WX 2100 has a 64-bit bus with 2 GB. The Quadro 6000’s bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s is nearly three times the WX 2100’s 48.00 GB/s. These are not minor differences; they reflect two entirely different design philosophies—the Quadro 6000 was built for high-bandwidth professional workloads, while the WX 2100 is a low-power, small-die product.

The shading and texture configurations also differ. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The WX 2100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 6000’s higher ROP count supports its pixel rate of 16.07 GPixel/s, while the WX 2100 achieves 19.50 GPixel/s despite fewer ROPs, thanks to higher clocks. The WX 2100’s texture rate of 39.01 GTexel/s also exceeds the Quadro 6000’s 32.14 GTexel/s. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The most striking differences are in power and physical design. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, while the WX 2100 has a 35 W TDP and needs no power connectors. The suggested PSU is 550 W for the Quadro 6000 versus 200 W for the WX 2100. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the WX 2100 is a single-slot card at 168 mm length and 69 mm height.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The WX 2100 has a base clock of 925 MHz and a boost clock of 1,219 MHz, with memory at 1,500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The WX 2100’s FP32 performance is 1,248.3 GFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at 1,248.3 GFLOPS (1:1). The Quadro 6000’s FP32 is 1,027.7 GFLOPS, with no FP16 listed.

Display outputs differ as well. The Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The WX 2100 offers 1x DisplayPort 1.4a and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 6000 and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the WX 2100. The Quadro 6000 was released on 2010-12-09, and the WX 2100 on 2017-06-03. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 6000’s predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler; the WX 2100’s predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega. The launch MSRP for the Quadro 6000 is 4,399 USD, and for the WX 2100 it is 149 USD.