AMD Radeon R9 M275X vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M275X and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by three years of architectural evolution. The R9 M275X, a mobile part from 2014 built on GCN 1.0, posts an average benchmark score of 10,582, while the Quadro 6000, a workstation behemoth from 2010 based on Fermi, scores 9,846. The data shows a clear overall winner in the R9 M275X, which takes the sole head-to-head benchmark by 13.8%, but the Quadro 6000 brings unique strengths in memory capacity and raw bandwidth that the newer chip cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X, with an average score of 10,582, outpaces the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9,846. This places the AMD part in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, two points ahead of the Quadro's 47th percentile.

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

A: The R9 M275X wins decisively, scoring 11,200 against the Quadro 6000's 9,846, a 13.8% advantage. This is the only benchmark where both cards were tested head-to-head.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between them?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 features a 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer, triple the 2 GB found on the AMD Radeon R9 M275X. The Quadro also has a wider 384-bit memory bus versus the AMD's 128-bit interface.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 6000 delivers 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the R9 M275X's 72.00 GB/s. This is despite the AMD card using faster 4.5 Gbps effective memory compared to the Quadro's 3 Gbps.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: The R9 M275X's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which scores 10,629 (0.4% higher). For the Quadro 6000, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832, a mere 0.1% behind.

Q: Which card is more efficient in terms of transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M275X packs 12.2 million transistors per mm² thanks to its 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, built on 40 nm, manages only 5.9M / mm². The AMD chip achieves this with fewer total transistors (1,500 million vs 3,100 million) on a much smaller die.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release windows. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X uses the Venus chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This modern node allows the chip to pack 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 employs the GF100 chip with Fermi architecture, also built by TSMC but on the older 40 nm node. This results in 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, with a much lower density of 5.9M / mm².

The compute configurations take different paths. The R9 M275X fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 counters with fewer shading units at 448, but more TMUs at 56 and significantly more ROPs at 48. Clock speeds favor the AMD card, which runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost; the Quadro's clocks are not listed in the data. Pixel fill rates are close, with the Quadro slightly ahead at 16.07 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, but the AMD card wins in texture fill rate at 37.00 GTexel/s against 32.14 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute output also favors AMD, at 1,184 GFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R9 M275X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s. Both use GDDR5, but the Quadro's wider bus gives it a massive bandwidth advantage. API support shows the newer AMD part supporting DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but lacks Vulkan support entirely. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, a 204 W TDP, and a suggested 550 W PSU; the R9 M275X has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the AMD Radeon R9 M275X as the faster card overall. Its average score of 10,582 eclipses the Quadro 6000's 9,846 by 7.5%, and it wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 13.8%. The AMD card also offers newer architecture features, Vulkan support, and better transistor efficiency. For general compute workloads and any application that leverages OpenCL, the R9 M275X is the clear choice from the data.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 remains relevant for specific scenarios. Its 6 GB frame buffer is triple the AMD's capacity, and its memory bandwidth of 143.4 GB/s is nearly double. For workloads that are memory-capacity-bound or bandwidth-limited, the Quadro 6000's specifications suggest it could handle larger datasets and memory-intensive tasks more effectively, despite its lower raw compute scores. The Quadro also has higher pixel fill rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s), which may benefit certain graphics operations.

Buyers should pick the R9 M275X for modern API support, higher compute throughput, and better overall benchmark performance. The Quadro 6000 should be chosen only when the need for 6 GB of memory or 143.4 GB/s bandwidth outweighs its older architecture and lower compute scores. The Quadro's 204 W TDP and dual-slot footprint also indicate it requires more substantial system integration than the mobile-oriented AMD part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M275X | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 900 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 925 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 72.00 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 448 |

| TMUs | 40 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.80 GPixel/s | 16.07 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.00 GTexel/s | 32.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,184.0 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 204 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | None |

| Release Date | 2014-01-27 | 2010-12-09 |

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisive. The AMD Radeon R9 M275X scores 11,200, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 manages 9,846. That is a 13.8% delta in favor of the AMD card, a substantial margin that reflects the generational leap in compute architecture. The R9 M275X wins this head-to-head matchup, giving it a 1-0 record in benchmark wins.

Looking at the broader context, the R9 M275X's average score of 10,582 places it among rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, 0.4% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, 1% higher), while sitting above the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481, 1% higher than the R9) and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, 1.7% higher). The Quadro 6000's average of 9,846 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.1% higher) and AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803, 0.4% higher), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9,959, 1.1% higher) and leading the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.7% lower). These positioning data points show the R9 M275X competing with mid-range parts from later generations, while the Quadro 6000 holds its own against mobile workstation GPUs from several years later.

The AMD card's victory in OpenCL is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput (1,184 GFLOPS vs 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and faster texture rate (37.00 GTexel/s vs 32.14 GTexel/s). The Quadro's advantages in pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s vs 14.80 GPixel/s) and memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s vs 72.00 GB/s) do not translate into a benchmark win in this particular test. The data suggests that for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, raw shader throughput matters more than memory bandwidth or ROP count. The Quadro 6000 also lacks Vulkan support entirely, while the R9 M275X supports Vulkan 1.2.170, making the AMD card far more versatile for modern cross-platform workloads. There is no Geekbench Vulkan score for the Quadro 6000, further underscoring its architectural age.