AMD Radeon R7 M380 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and AMD Radeon R7 M380 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by nearly five years of technological evolution. The Quadro 6000 is a 2010-era workstation monster built on a 40 nm process, while the R7 M380 is a 2015 mobile part on a 28 nm process. Despite the age gap, the benchmark data shows a surprisingly close contest, with the Quadro 6000 edging out the R7 M380 by a 5.7% margin in the single available OpenCL test. The architecture differences are stark, and the specification sheets read like a study in trade-offs between raw compute capacity and modern efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9,313. The Quadro 6000 wins this head-to-head by a delta of 5.7%.

Q: How does the Quadro 6000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 6000 sits within 1.1% of all four listed nearest rivals. It is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, 0.4% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000, and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070. The only rival ahead of it is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M, which leads by 1.1%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M380 has 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 32.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro's bandwidth advantage is roughly 4.5 times greater.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M380 packs 12.2 million transistors per mm², compared to the Quadro 6000's 5.9 million per mm². This is despite the R7 M380 having fewer total transistors (1,500 million vs. 3,100 million) on a much smaller die (123 mm² vs. 529 mm²).

Q: What is the process node and architecture of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture on TSMC's 40 nm process with the GF100 chip. The AMD Radeon R7 M380 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on TSMC's 28 nm process with the Tropo chip.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The Quadro 6000 was released on 2010-12-09, and the R7 M380 was released on 2015-05-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The Quadro 6000 is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, a design that prioritized raw compute throughput for professional workloads. It uses the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die is massive at 529 mm², housing 3,100 million transistors. This large, power-hungry design was typical of early 2010s workstation parts, where performance per watt was secondary to absolute capability.

The R7 M380, by contrast, uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically the Tropo chip. This is a much more modern and efficient design, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. The die is only 123 mm², with 1,500 million transistors. The transistor density tells the story: the R7 M380 achieves 12.2 million transistors per mm², more than double the Quadro's 5.9 million per mm². This reflects the generational leap in manufacturing and design efficiency between 2010 and 2015.

The compute layouts differ significantly. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The R7 M380 has more shading units at 640, but fewer TMUs (40) and far fewer ROPs (16). This suggests the Quadro is designed for heavy pixel throughput, while the R7 M380 leans toward general-purpose shader work. The Quadro's pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the R7 M380's 14.64 GPixel/s. In texture rate, the tables turn: the R7 M380 achieves 36.60 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 32.14 GTexel/s. The floating-point performance also favors the R7 M380, which delivers 1,171.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the Quadro's 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is where the Quadro dominates. It uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M380 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing just 32.00 GB/s. This is a seven-fold difference in bandwidth per GB and a 4.5-fold difference in absolute bandwidth. The memory clock also differs: the Quadro runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the R7 M380 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The Quadro's wider bus more than compensates for its lower clock speed.

API support shows the R7 M380's newer heritage. While both support DirectX 12 (the Quadro at 11_0 and the R7 M380 at 11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, the R7 M380 adds Vulkan 1.2.170 support, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The bus interface also differs, with the Quadro using PCIe 2.0 x16 and the R7 M380 using PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is close. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, while the AMD Radeon R7 M380 scores 9,313. The Quadro wins by 5.7%, a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. This result is interesting given the architectural differences: the R7 M380 has 43% more shading units and 14% higher FP32 throughput, yet it still loses to the older Fermi part.

The Quadro's victory likely stems from its memory subsystem. With 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus the R7 M380's 32.00 GB/s, the Quadro can feed its compute units far more effectively in memory-bound OpenCL workloads. The 384-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory provide a massive advantage that the R7 M380's higher shader count cannot overcome. The Quadro's 48 ROPs, three times the R7 M380's 16, also help in tasks that require significant pixel or data output.

The R7 M380's closer rival list shows it is competitive with mid-range GeForce parts. It is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465, 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8. The Quadro, meanwhile, sits in a slightly higher performance tier, with its rivals including the Quadro M2000M (0.1% behind) and the GeForce GTX 870M (1.1% ahead of it).

The percentile rankings reflect this closeness. The Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M380 sits at the 46th. This is a one-percentile difference, confirming that these two GPUs occupy nearly identical positions in the overall performance hierarchy, despite their very different designs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge sharply across nearly every field. The process node is a clear differentiator: 40 nm for the Quadro versus 28 nm for the R7 M380. The die size is 529 mm² for the Quadro and 123 mm² for the R7 M380. Transistor counts are 3,100 million versus 1,500 million. The Quadro's power consumption is stated at 204 W TDP, while the R7 M380 has no listed TDP, suggesting it is a low-power mobile part. The Quadro requires a dual-slot cooler with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU, while the R7 M380 has no listed power connectors or PSU requirement.

Memory is a major split: 6 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus versus 4 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The bandwidth figures are 143.4 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s. The shading units are 448 versus 640, TMUs are 56 versus 40, and ROPs are 48 versus 16. Pixel rates are 16.07 GPixel/s versus 14.64 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 32.14 GTexel/s versus 36.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 1,171.2 GFLOPS.

The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD, while the R7 M380 has no launch MSRP listed. The Quadro is a dual-slot card measuring 248 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with display outputs of 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. The R7 M380 has no dimensions or display outputs listed. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R7 M380 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. For APIs, the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The R7 M380 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the only benchmark available, but its advantages extend beyond that single test. It has a massive memory bandwidth advantage at 143.4 GB/s versus 32.00 GB/s, which is critical for large dataset workloads, high-resolution textures, and memory-intensive compute tasks. Its 6 GB of VRAM doubles the R7 M380's 4 GB, allowing larger working sets. The 48 ROPs versus 16 give it a strong pixel throughput advantage, evidenced by the 16.07 GPixel/s versus 14.64 GPixel/s. This makes the Quadro better suited for traditional rasterization-heavy workloads and professional visualization tasks that demand high fill rates. The dual-slot form factor and 204 W TDP indicate a desktop workstation card designed for sustained, high-performance operation.

The AMD Radeon R7 M380, despite losing the benchmark, has its own strengths. It offers higher shading unit count (640 versus 448), higher FP32 compute (1,171.2 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS), and higher texture rate (36.60 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s). This suggests it is better optimized for shader-heavy, compute-oriented tasks that can leverage its additional ALUs and texture units. Its 28 nm process makes it far more power-efficient per transistor, and the lack of a TDP rating suggests it is intended for mobile or low-power environments. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and Vulkan 1.2.170 support mean it is more modern in terms of system compatibility and software API access. The higher transistor density (12.2M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm²) indicates a more sophisticated design that achieves more performance per square millimeter of silicon.

In practical terms, the Quadro 6000 is the better choice for bandwidth-bound professional workloads, such as 3D rendering, video processing, and scientific visualization where large frame buffers and high pixel rates matter. The R7 M380 is better suited for compute-bound tasks that scale with shader count and FP32 throughput, particularly in power-constrained systems where the Quadro's 204 W TDP and dual-slot cooler would be impractical. The data shows a win for the Quadro in raw benchmark score, but the R7 M380's modern architecture and efficiency make it a compelling alternative in scenarios where power and space are at a premium.