AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the primary benchmark result for the NVIDIA Quadro 6000?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 9846. This places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database.

Q: What benchmark results are available for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has multiple scores: Geekbench Metal at 29003, Geekbench OpenCL at 24217, Geekbench Vulkan at 26909, Passmark DirectX 10 at 29, DirectX 11 at 36, DirectX 12 at 26, DirectX 9 at 88, G2D at 777, G3D at 5496, and GPU Compute at 2053.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24217 versus the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9846. The AMD card wins with a delta of -59.3%, meaning the Quadro 6000 trails by that margin.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has an average benchmark score of 9846. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 has an average benchmark score of 8863, despite winning the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: Who are the nearest rivals for the NVIDIA Quadro 6000?

A: The nearest rivals are NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (avg score 9832, delta 0.1%), AMD FirePro W5000 (avg score 9803, delta 0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (avg score 9780, delta 0.7%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (avg score 9959, delta -1.1%).

Q: Who are the nearest rivals for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100?

A: The nearest rivals are AMD Radeon R9 M265X (avg score 8851, delta 0.1%), AMD Radeon 550X (avg score 8918, delta -0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (avg score 8746, delta 1.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (avg score 8743, delta 1.4%).

The Verdict

The data splits cleanly by workload. For raw compute in OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the clear choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 24217 dwarfs the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9846. This is a 59.3% advantage, a decisive margin that dominates the only direct head-to-head measurement in the database.

However, the average benchmark score tells a different story. The Quadro 6000 averages 9846 across its recorded test, while the WX 5100 averages 8863. The Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 5100 sits at the 44th. This indicates that the WX 5100's OpenCL strength is offset by weaker results in other tests, such as its Passmark scores which range from 26 to 5496 depending on the workload.

For professionals who rely on OpenCL compute, the WX 5100 is the superior option. For those whose software uses other APIs or where the overall balanced profile matters, the Quadro 6000's higher average and percentile suggest it remains competitive despite being older. The WX 5100 also offers broader API support including Vulkan 1.3, Metal, and DirectX 12 (12_0), whereas the Quadro 6000 maxes out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan entirely.

The verdict: choose the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks and modern API compatibility. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 for legacy software environments where its Fermi architecture and higher average percentile still hold value.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 24217, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9846. The delta is -59.3% from the Quadro's perspective, meaning the WX 5100 outperforms it by roughly two and a half times.

This margin is substantial. It places the WX 5100 far outside the range of the Quadro 6000's nearest rivals. The Quadro 6000's closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, scores 9832, a mere 0.1% difference. The WX 5100's OpenCL result is more than double that entire cluster.

The WX 5100 also demonstrates strength in other benchmarks recorded separately. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 26909 and Metal score of 29003 show that its compute capabilities extend across multiple APIs. The Quadro 6000 has no recorded Vulkan or Metal results, so no direct comparison is possible, but the absence of these tests in its profile suggests limited support.

In Passmark tests, the WX 5100 shows a varied profile. Its G3D score is 5496, while its GPU Compute score is 2053. The DirectX 9 score of 88 is notably higher than DirectX 10 (29), DirectX 11 (36), and DirectX 12 (26). This pattern suggests that the WX 5100 performs best in legacy DirectX 9 workloads among the Passmark suite, while its modern API performance in those specific tests is weaker.

The Quadro 6000 has no Passmark results recorded, so its performance in those specific tests cannot be compared directly. However, its single OpenCL score of 9846 is the only data point available, and it lags significantly behind the WX 5100's OpenCL result.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses a GF100 chip with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses an Ellesmere chip with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor density reflects this: 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro versus 24.6M per mm² for the WX 5100.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The Quadro 6000 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the WX 5100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 5100 has more capacity and higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Clock speeds are only recorded for the WX 5100: base 713 MHz, boost 1086 MHz, and memory 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective).

Compute units differ: the Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The WX 5100 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The WX 5100 has four times the shading units and double the TMUs, but fewer ROPs.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W, a dual-slot width, and requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU. The WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, a single-slot width, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 6000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the WX 5100. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, while the WX 5100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 is built on the Fermi architecture with a GF100 chip, part of the Quadro Fermi generation. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses GCN 4.0 with an Ellesmere chip, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation.

The process node difference is stark: 40 nm for the Quadro 6000 versus 14 nm for the WX 5100. This explains the dramatic density difference: the WX 5100 packs 5,700 million transistors into 232 mm², while the Quadro 6000 fits 3,100 million into 529 mm². The WX 5100 achieves nearly double the transistor count in less than half the die area.

Compute capability reflects the architectural evolution. The WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS FP32 and 3.892 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Quadro 6000 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS FP32 and no recorded FP16 capability. The WX 5100 also has higher pixel rate (34.75 GPixel/s) and texture rate (121.6 GTexel/s) compared to the Quadro 6000's 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s.

API support differs. The WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. This means the WX 5100 can run modern Vulkan applications while the Quadro 6000 cannot.

The release timeline shows a six-year gap: the Quadro 6000 launched on December 9, 2010, while the WX 5100 launched on November 17, 2016. Both are end-of-life. The Quadro 6000's predecessor is Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is Quadro Kepler. The WX 5100's predecessor is Radeon Pro GCN and its successor is Radeon Pro Vega.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins decisively in the only direct head-to-head benchmark. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 24217 versus 9846 for the Quadro 6000 gives it a 59.3% advantage. This makes it the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads, which often underpin scientific, engineering, and data-processing tasks.

The WX 5100 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth: 8 GB and 160.0 GB/s versus 6 GB and 143.4 GB/s for the Quadro 6000. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, the extra capacity is valuable. Its modern PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also provides faster host communication than the Quadro 6000's PCIe 2.0 x16.

The WX 5100 wins on API support. It supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan. For software that uses Vulkan, the WX 5100 is the only option between these two.

The WX 5100 wins on efficiency: 75 W TDP with no external power connectors versus 204 W with dual connectors. It is a single-slot card versus dual-slot, and its suggested PSU is 250 W versus 550 W. This makes it far easier to integrate into compact systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins on average benchmark score: 9846 versus 8863 for the WX 5100. It also holds a higher percentile at 47 versus 44. For users who rely on the overall balance of performance across multiple test types, the Quadro 6000's profile is better.

The Quadro 6000 also wins on ROP count: 48 versus 32 for the WX 5100. This can benefit certain fill-rate-bound workloads, though its lower pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s) suggests the WX 5100 still handles pixel output faster overall.

In legacy DirectX 9 workloads, the WX 5100's Passmark DirectX 9 score of 88 is its highest Passmark result. The Quadro 6000 has no comparable data, so no direct win can be claimed for either card in that specific test.

The verdict per workload: choose the WX 5100 for OpenCL compute, Vulkan support, high memory capacity, and low power requirements. Choose the Quadro 6000 for environments where its higher average score and percentile matter, and where legacy Fermi compatibility is a requirement.