AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000. Across the two shared tests in the database, the Quadro RTX 6000 wins both: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 does not register a single head-to-head victory in these workloads.

The most pronounced advantage appears in Vulkan compute. The Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564 against the WX 9100’s 54,711, a delta of 136.8%. That is not a marginal gap; it is a dominant outcome. For applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering, simulation, or compute dispatch, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice based on the measured data.

In OpenCL, the margin narrows considerably but still favors NVIDIA. The Quadro RTX 6000 posts 74,179 versus the WX 9100’s 66,605, an 11.4% lead. OpenCL is the more common cross-vendor compute path, and while the NVIDIA card is ahead, the AMD part remains competitive in this specific test. Still, a win is a win, and the data records two wins for NVIDIA, zero for AMD.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the gap widens further. The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872 across its recorded tests, while the WX 9100 averages 64,212. That is a 58.6% difference in aggregate performance, driven largely by the Vulkan result. The percentile rankings reflect this: the Quadro RTX 6000 sits at the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the WX 9100 sits at the 89th percentile.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For Vulkan-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA card is overwhelmingly faster. For OpenCL-centric tasks, the NVIDIA card still leads, but the AMD card is a viable alternative. For any workload that relies on Metal, the WX 9100 has a recorded score of 71,319, but the Quadro RTX 6000 has no Metal benchmark in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and foundries. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip, built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The die measures 754 mm² and contains 18,600 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 24.7 million per mm². The WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip, built on AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Its die is smaller at 495 mm², with 12,500 million transistors and a density of 25.3 million per mm².

The transistor density is actually slightly higher on the AMD chip, but the NVIDIA chip packs more transistors overall and on a larger die. The process node advantage (12 nm versus 14 nm) helps NVIDIA fit more logic into the same area, though the density numbers show AMD’s design is not inefficient.

Memory technology differs fundamentally. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The WX 9100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has both more capacity and more bandwidth. The AMD card’s HBM2 is a more exotic memory type, but the numbers do not favor it here.

Compute resources also differ. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The WX 9100 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA also adds 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. Those dedicated cores are designed for ray tracing and AI workloads, giving the Quadro RTX 6000 a feature set the WX 9100 cannot match.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA as well. The Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. The WX 9100 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ too: the NVIDIA card runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the AMD card runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective).

API support is another differentiator. The Quadro RTX 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 9100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer DirectX and Vulkan versions on the NVIDIA card align with its more modern architecture.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a TDP of 260 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The WX 9100 has a TDP of 230 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both are dual-slot cards with the same dimensions (267 mm length, 111 mm height) and use the same power connectors (1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin). The NVIDIA card has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus one USB Type-C, while the AMD card has six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two shared benchmarks between these cards, and both go to NVIDIA.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 74,179 against the WX 9100’s 66,605. The 11.4% delta is a solid but not overwhelming win. This test measures general compute performance across a range of workloads, and the NVIDIA card’s higher clocks, more shading units, and larger memory bandwidth contribute to the lead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the result is lopsided. The Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564, while the WX 9100 scores 54,711. That is a 136.8% advantage for NVIDIA. Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose architectural efficiency, and the Turing architecture’s design clearly benefits here. The WX 9100’s GCN 5.0 architecture does not scale as well in this test.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro RTX 6000’s average of 101,872 is 4.5% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 7900M’s 97,487, 4.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro VII’s 97,131, 4.6% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo’s 106,750, and 5.1% lower than the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X’s 107,342. These nearest rivals bracket the NVIDIA card closely, showing it sits in a competitive performance band.

The WX 9100’s average of 64,212 is nearly identical to its nearest rivals: the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63,842 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (0.6% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63,693 (0.8% higher). These are all within a percentage point, meaning the WX 9100 is very much at the center of its performance class.

The head-to-head data shows that the Quadro RTX 6000 is not just faster; it is in a different performance tier for Vulkan. The OpenCL result is closer, but still a clear win. Any application that can use Vulkan will see a massive uplift on the NVIDIA card.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 74,179 versus the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100’s 66,605, an 11.4% advantage.

Q: Is the Vulkan gap between the two cards large?

A: Yes. The Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the WX 9100 scores 54,711. That is a 136.8% difference, making the NVIDIA card more than twice as fast in this test.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark where it is not recorded?

A: The WX 9100 has a Geekbench Metal score of 71,319. The Quadro RTX 6000 has no Metal benchmark in the database, so no direct comparison is available for Apple’s Metal API.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 9100 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the architectural difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture (TU102 chip, 12 nm TSMC process), with 4,608 shading units, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The WX 9100 uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture (Vega 10 chip, 14 nm GlobalFoundries process), with 4,096 shading units and no RT or tensor cores.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 9100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks and holds a substantially higher average benchmark score. The 136.8% lead in Vulkan is the single largest differentiator, and it is enough to place the NVIDIA card in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 9100 sits at the 89th percentile.

For users with Vulkan-based workloads, the choice is clear: the Quadro RTX 6000 offers more than double the performance. For OpenCL workloads, the NVIDIA card still leads by 11.4%, which is meaningful but not transformative. The AMD card is competitive in that specific test, though it never wins.

The WX 9100’s closest rivals in the database are all within 0.8% of its average score, indicating it is a solid mid-pack performer. The Quadro RTX 6000’s nearest rivals are also close, but they sit at a higher absolute level. The NVIDIA card is simply in a higher performance class.

Architecturally, the Quadro RTX 6000 offers features the WX 9100 lacks entirely: RT cores for ray tracing and tensor cores for AI acceleration. It also has more memory, higher bandwidth, newer API support, and higher clock speeds. The only areas where the AMD card is not clearly behind are power draw (230 W versus 260 W TDP) and display output count (six mini-DisplayPort versus four DisplayPort plus USB Type-C).

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Quadro RTX 6000 for maximum compute performance, especially in Vulkan, and for workloads that can use RT or tensor cores. Choose the WX 9100 only if the lower power draw or the specific display output configuration matters more than raw performance, or if Metal compatibility is required and the NVIDIA card’s lack of a Metal score is a concern.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 |

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

| Chip | TU102 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 945 MHz, 1890 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 483.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 288 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 72 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 96.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 16.31 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 230 W |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

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

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2017-07-09 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | Radeon Pro GCN |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Radeon Pro Vega |