AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards aimed at the same high-end compute and visualization segment, yet they approach the task with fundamentally different architectures. The data shows a near-tie in average benchmark scores, but the individual workload results reveal distinct strengths that could dictate a buying decision depending on the software environment.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has a higher average benchmark score of 69,986, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 trails with an average score of 64,212, which puts it in the 89th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The result is extremely close. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 66,605, which is only 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000's score of 66,382. This is effectively a statistical tie.

Q: Which card is faster in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is significantly faster in the Geekbench Vulkan test. It scores 73,590, which is a 34.5% advantage over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100's score of 54,711.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering a higher bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s.

Q: Which card consumes more power?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has a higher thermal design power (TDP) of 250 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has a lower TDP of 230 W. The suggested power supply is 600 W for the NVIDIA card and 550 W for the AMD card.

Q: What is the release window for these products?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 was released on September 30, 2016, with a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 was released on July 9, 2017, with a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP102 chip, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 utilizes the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor counts are similar—11,800 million for NVIDIA and 12,500 million for AMD—resulting in comparable die sizes of 471 mm² and 495 mm² respectively.

The compute pipelines diverge significantly. The AMD card packs more shading units (4,096 versus 3,840) and more texture mapping units (256 versus 240), but the NVIDIA card has more render output units (96 versus 64). This configuration gives the NVIDIA card a substantially higher pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s compared to AMD's 96.00 GPixel/s, while texture rates are nearly identical at 394.8 GTexel/s for NVIDIA and 384.0 GTexel/s for AMD.

Clock speeds also differ. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 runs at a base clock of 1506 MHz with a boost up to 1645 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 starts lower at 1200 MHz base and boosts to 1500 MHz. Despite these differences, the peak FP32 performance is very close: 12.63 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 12.29 TFLOPS for AMD. A major architectural distinction emerges in half-precision throughput. The NVIDIA card delivers only 197.4 GFLOPS of FP16 performance (a 1:64 ratio), whereas the AMD card delivers 24.58 TFLOPS of FP16 (a 2:1 ratio), making it 125 times faster in this specific workload.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental split. The NVIDIA card uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit interface, while the AMD card uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a much wider 2048-bit interface. This gives AMD the bandwidth advantage at 483.8 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s. Both cards are dual-slot designs with identical physical dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. Neither card features dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a split decision with one clear blowout and one near dead heat. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 edges out the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 by a razor-thin margin. The AMD card scores 66,605 against NVIDIA's 66,382, a delta of just 0.3%. This result is well within the noise of typical benchmark variation and suggests that raw compute performance in OpenCL is essentially equivalent between the two cards. This parity makes sense given the nearly identical FP32 throughput figures of 12.29 TFLOPS and 12.63 TFLOPS.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a completely different story. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 dominates with a score of 73,590, which is a massive 34.5% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100's score of 54,711. This is not a marginal difference; it is a decisive victory for NVIDIA in API-specific performance. The magnitude of this lead suggests that the Pascal architecture has significantly better driver optimization or hardware-level efficiency for Vulkan workloads compared to GCN 5.0. For professionals running Vulkan-based applications, the Quadro P6000 would deliver a perceptibly smoother and faster experience.

The average benchmark scores further contextualize these results. The NVIDIA card's average of 69,986 is pulled up by its strong Vulkan showing, while the AMD card's average of 64,212 is dragged down by its weak Vulkan score. Interestingly, the AMD card also has a Geekbench Metal score of 71,319, which is not part of the head-to-head comparison but indicates strong performance in Apple's graphics API—a workload where the NVIDIA card has no comparable data. Both cards win one head-to-head benchmark each, but the NVIDIA victory is far more lopsided in magnitude.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences between these two professional GPUs. Memory capacity and type represent the most obvious divergence: the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5X, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 offers 16 GB of HBM2. The memory bus width is also vastly different, with NVIDIA using a 384-bit interface and AMD using a 2048-bit interface. This results in AMD having higher memory bandwidth at 483.8 GB/s compared to NVIDIA's 432.8 GB/s.

The compute unit counts differ, with AMD holding the advantage in shading units (4,096 versus 3,840) and TMUs (256 versus 240), while NVIDIA leads in ROPs (96 versus 64). Clock speeds are higher on the NVIDIA card, with a base clock of 1506 MHz and boost of 1645 MHz, compared to AMD's 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Peak FP32 performance is marginally higher on NVIDIA at 12.63 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, but FP16 performance is dramatically different: AMD delivers 24.58 TFLOPS while NVIDIA limps along at 197.4 GFLOPS.

Power requirements show NVIDIA drawing more power at 250 W TDP versus 230 W for AMD, with a correspondingly higher suggested PSU of 600 W versus 550 W. The power connector configuration also differs: NVIDIA uses a single 8-pin connector, while AMD requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. Display outputs are another differentiating factor, with NVIDIA offering 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The manufacturing process and foundry differ, with NVIDIA using TSMC's 16 nm process and AMD using GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. Transistor density is nearly identical at 25.1M per mm² for NVIDIA and 25.3M per mm² for AMD. The API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL (both 12_1 and 4.6 respectively), but NVIDIA supports Vulkan 1.4 while AMD supports Vulkan 1.3. The release dates are about nine months apart, and the launch MSRP differs substantially, though that figure is noted only for reference.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture for professionals choosing between these two cards. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the clear choice for Vulkan-based applications, where its 34.5% performance lead over the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is decisive. Its higher pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s also suggests better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios, and the larger 24 GB memory capacity provides more headroom for massive datasets.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 is the better option for workloads that leverage FP16 compute, given its 24.58 TFLOPS capability versus NVIDIA's paltry 197.4 GFLOPS. The higher memory bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s could benefit memory-intensive tasks, and the lower TDP of 230 W means less heat generation. The OpenCL performance is essentially a tie, so that API does not differentiate the two.

The average scores tell a story of overall parity with NVIDIA holding a slight edge: 69,986 versus 64,212. The percentile rankings (90th versus 89th) confirm that both cards sit near the top of the GPU hierarchy, but the NVIDIA card sits one step higher. For most general-purpose professional workloads, the data suggests the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the safer bet due to its higher average score and dominant Vulkan performance. The AMD card is the specialist choice, appealing primarily to users who need massive FP16 throughput or who work exclusively in OpenCL and Metal environments where it performs comparably or better.