AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record splits cleanly between these two legacy mobile and workstation parts. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins the only head-to-head test recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL workload, by a meaningful 11.2% margin. That is the sole win for either card, so the use-case split is straightforward: the Quadro 6000 is the stronger compute candidate in this comparison, while the Radeon R9 M265X does not hold a single recorded advantage.

The percentile data reinforces the same picture. The Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon R9 M265X sits at the 44th percentile. A three-percentile gap is not enormous in absolute terms, but it aligns with the 11.2% OpenCL delta. The Quadro 6000's average benchmark score is 9,846, and its nearest rivals include the Quadro M2000M at 9,832 (0.1% behind), the FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.4% behind), and the GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 (0.7% behind). The only rival scoring above it in that cluster is the GeForce GTX 870M at 9,959, which leads by 1.1%. So the Quadro 6000 is not a top-tier part, but it holds its own against a spread of more modern midrange and older high-end cards.

The Radeon R9 M265X, by contrast, has an average score of 8,851. Its nearest rivals are the Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (0.1% ahead), the Radeon 550X at 8,918 (0.8% ahead), the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile at 8,746 (1.2% behind), and the GeForce GTX 460 v2 at 8,743 (1.2% behind). Those deltas are all small, within roughly a point or so, meaning the R9 M265X sits in a tightly packed performance band. It is not far off its neighbors, but it is clearly below the Quadro 6000's score band.

For a user deciding purely on recorded OpenCL compute, the Quadro 6000 is the pick. For any workload that relies on the R9 M265X's specific feature set, the data here does not provide a win to point to. The database records one benchmark, one winner, and a consistent story across percentiles and rival clusters.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages and different manufacturing nodes. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon R9 M265X uses the Venus chip on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a newer 28 nm node. It holds 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The R9 M265X's die is less than a quarter the size of the Quadro 6000's, yet it fits roughly half the transistors, a direct result of the denser 28 nm process.

Shading resources differ in count and arrangement. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The R9 M265X has more shading units at 640, but fewer TMUs at 40 and far fewer ROPs at 16. The raw FP32 throughput tells a different story: the Quadro 6000 delivers 1,027.7 GFLOPS, while the R9 M265X delivers 800.0 GFLOPS. Despite having 192 more shaders, the R9 M265X's lower clock speeds hold back its peak compute. Similarly, the Quadro 6000's texture rate is 32.14 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M265X, and its pixel rate is 16.07 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s.

Memory configurations are also far apart. The Quadro 6000 carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is less than half the bandwidth, and less than half the memory capacity. The Quadro 6000's memory clock is listed at 747 MHz with 3 Gbps effective, while the R9 M265X runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The higher per-pin speed on the R9 M265X cannot compensate for its much narrower bus.

Feature support also diverges. The Quadro 6000 exposes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan entry in the database. The R9 M265X exposes DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R9 M265X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro 6000 requires a dual-slot cooler and a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested 550 W power supply. The R9 M265X has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU recommendation, which is typical for a mobile-oriented part where those details are system-dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, and the R9 M265X scores 8,851. The delta is 11.2% in favor of the Quadro 6000. That margin is substantial enough to be visible in real compute workloads, though not enough to suggest a generational gap. For context, the Quadro 6000's score is only 0.1% above the Quadro M2000M and 0.4% above the FirePro W5000, so an 11.2% lead over the R9 M265X places the R9 M265X clearly outside the Quadro 6000's immediate rival cluster.

Looking at the R9 M265X's own rival set, its score of 8,851 is 0.1% below the Radeon Pro WX 5100 and 0.8% below the Radeon 550X. It is 1.2% above the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and 1.2% above the GeForce GTX 460 v2. Those are all close calls, meaning the R9 M265X's performance is competitive with a handful of other midrange cards, but the Quadro 6000 is simply in a higher score band.

The deltas in the rival lists also show how the two cards compare to their own peers. The Quadro 6000's closest competitor, the Quadro M2000M, is basically tied at 0.1% behind. The GeForce GTX 1070, a much more modern card, is only 0.7% behind the Quadro 6000 in this OpenCL test. The GeForce GTX 870M leads the Quadro 6000 by 1.1%. None of those rivals approach the 11.2% gap the Quadro 6000 holds over the R9 M265X. The R9 M265X, meanwhile, has a rival spread of at most 1.2% in either direction, which shows how tightly grouped its performance is.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846 on the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851. The Quadro 6000 wins by 11.2%.

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

A: The Quadro 6000's average score of 9,846 places it 0.1% above the Quadro M2000M (9,832), 0.4% above the FirePro W5000 (9,803), and 0.7% above the GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780). The GeForce GTX 870M (9,959) is 1.1% ahead of it.

Q: How does the Radeon R9 M265X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R9 M265X's average score of 8,851 is 0.1% below the Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and 0.8% below the Radeon 550X (8,918). It is 1.2% above both the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) and the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743).

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 143.4 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units, and which has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The R9 M265X has 640 shading units versus 448 on the Quadro 6000. However, the Quadro 6000 delivers higher FP32 throughput at 1,027.7 GFLOPS, compared to 800.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M265X.

Q: What API support differences exist?

A: Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the Quadro 6000's DirectX level is 11_0 while the R9 M265X's is 11_1. The R9 M265X also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan entry in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 as the stronger GPU for OpenCL compute. Its 11.2% lead over the Radeon R9 M265X is the only head-to-head result recorded, and it aligns with the percentile gap: 47th versus 44th. The Quadro 6000 also offers more memory, more bandwidth, and higher pixel and texture rates. The R9 M265X counters with a smaller, denser 28 nm die, more shading units, and Vulkan support, but none of those translate into a benchmark win in the database.

For a user selecting purely on recorded performance, the Quadro 6000 is the clear choice. Its 6 GB frame buffer and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth give it a substantial advantage in memory-heavy workloads, and its higher FP32 throughput supports compute tasks. The R9 M265X, with 2 GB and 64.00 GB/s, is a lighter part that sits in a tightly packed rival group, all within 1.2% of each other. The Quadro 6000's rival group is similarly tight, but at a higher absolute score level.

The R9 M265X is not without merit. Its GCN 1.0 architecture brings Vulkan 1.2.170 support, which the Fermi-based Quadro 6000 lacks, and its 640 shading units suggest a different compute balance. But the benchmark data does not show any workload where the R9 M265X wins. The verdict is therefore straightforward: for OpenCL performance, the Quadro 6000; for Vulkan compatibility and a smaller, lower-power design, the R9 M265X, though no TDP is recorded to confirm the power advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 | AMD Radeon R9 M265X |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GF100 | Venus |

| Process node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,500 million |

| Die size | 529 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Shading units | 448 | 640 |

| TMUs | 56 | 40 |

| ROPs | 48 | 16 |

| Memory size | 6 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory bus width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 143.4 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Memory clock | 747 MHz, 3 Gbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Base clock | Not recorded | 575 MHz |

| Boost clock | Not recorded | 625 MHz |

| FP32 throughput | 1,027.7 GFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| Pixel rate | 16.07 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 32.14 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 204 W | Not recorded |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Not recorded |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not recorded |

| Bus interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | Not recorded | 1.2.170 |

| Release date | 2010-12-09 | 2014-03-20 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 4,399 USD | Not recorded |