AMD Radeon R9 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape. The Quadro 6000 is a professional workstation card from the Fermi era, designed for compute and rendering tasks. The R9 M360 is a mobile graphics processor from AMD’s GCN 1.0 generation, aimed at laptop deployments. The database records a single OpenCL benchmark for the Quadro 6000, scoring 9846, while the R9 M360 scores 8211 in OpenCL and 8047 in Vulkan. This places the Quadro 6000 at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the R9 M360 sits at the 42nd percentile. The head-to-head OpenCL result shows a 19.9% advantage for the Quadro 6000, a substantial gap that reflects differences in architecture, memory configuration, and design intent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9846 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8211. The Quadro 6000 leads by 19.9% in this specific test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card according to the database?

A: For the Quadro 6000, the closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9832, 0.1% slower), the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803, 0.4% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9780, 0.7% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M (9959, 1.1% faster). For the R9 M360, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135, 0.1% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8099, 0.4% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8167, 0.5% faster), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 (8080, 0.6% slower).

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M360 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro’s bandwidth is roughly double that of the R9 M360.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M360 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support in its API specifications. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 does not list a Vulkan version. Both cards support DirectX 12, though the Quadro 6000 is listed with 12 (11_0) while the R9 M360 is listed with 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the transistor densities of the two chips?

A: The Quadro 6000’s GF100 chip has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a density of 5.9 million transistors per mm². The R9 M360’s Tropo chip has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a density of 12.2 million transistors per mm².

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 was released on December 9, 2010. The R9 M360 was released on May 4, 2015, roughly four and a half years later.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The Quadro 6000 is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, specifically the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, power-hungry design: the die measures 529 mm² and packs 3,100 million transistors. The R9 M360 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, with the Tropo chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The Tropo die is considerably smaller at 123 mm², holding 1,500 million transistors. The process node advantage matters: the 28 nm node allows a much higher transistor density of 12.2 million per mm² versus 5.9 million per mm² for the Fermi chip. This means the R9 M360 crams more logic into less space, though the Quadro 6000’s sheer die size gives it more total transistors.

The compute resources differ significantly. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. The R9 M360 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. While the R9 M360 has more shading units, the Quadro 6000 has far more texture and pixel throughput hardware. This is reflected in the recorded rates: the Quadro 6000 achieves 16.07 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 32.14 GTexel/s texture rate, while the R9 M360 manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro 6000’s higher FP32 performance of 1,027.7 GFLOPS edges out the R9 M360’s 947.2 GFLOPS. Neither card lists FP16 support.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Quadro 6000 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 6 GB of GDDR5, running at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), which yields 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M360 has a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, clocked at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), delivering 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro’s wider bus is a classic workstation trait, prioritizing bandwidth for large datasets. The R9 M360’s narrower bus with faster memory clocks is typical of mobile parts aiming for lower power footprints.

The API support reveals another generational difference. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan listing. The R9 M360 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The addition of Vulkan on the R9 M360 reflects its later release and modern software stack. The Quadro 6000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the R9 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the available bandwidth for host transfers. The Quadro 6000 is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The R9 M360 has no listed slot width, power connectors, or PSU requirements, consistent with a mobile GPU where these are handled by the laptop design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro 6000 scores 9846, while the R9 M360 scores 8211. The delta is 19.9% in favor of the Quadro 6000. This is a decisive victory, but it must be contextualized. The Quadro 6000’s score places it at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of its performance. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9832, just 0.1% behind. The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9803, 0.4% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 scores 9780, 0.7% behind. Only the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M scores higher, at 9959, which is 1.1% above the Quadro 6000. This suggests the Quadro 6000 sits in a tightly packed performance band, where its 19.9% lead over the R9 M360 is significant but not anomalous.

The R9 M360’s OpenCL score of 8211 is far more modest. Its nearest rivals cluster around it: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 8135, 0.1% higher; the NVIDIA GeForce 945M scores 8099, 0.4% lower; the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 8167, 0.5% higher; and the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 8080, 0.6% lower. The R9 M360 also has a Vulkan score of 8047, which is lower than its OpenCL score. The average benchmark score for the R9 M360 is 8129, reflecting its two recorded tests. The Quadro 6000 has only one recorded test, so its average equals its OpenCL score of 9846. The percentile rankings reinforce the gap: the Quadro 6000 is at the 47th percentile, the R9 M360 at the 42nd. A five-percentile gap in the database’s ranking is meaningful, but both cards sit below the median, indicating neither is a high-performance outlier.

The 19.9% delta in OpenCL is the only direct comparison available. It is importantly the Quadro 6000’s advantage is not simply a matter of newer technology. The R9 M360, released in 2015, is five years newer than the 2010 Quadro 6000. Yet the older card wins decisively. The reasons lie in the architectural choices: the Quadro 6000’s 384-bit memory bus provides 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the R9 M360’s 72.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for OpenCL workloads, which often involve large data transfers. The Quadro 6000 also has 48 ROPs versus 16 ROPs on the R9 M360, and 56 TMUs versus 32 TMUs. Even though the R9 M360 has 512 shading units versus 448, the Quadro 6000’s higher FP32 throughput (1,027.7 GFLOPS vs 947.2 GFLOPS) suggests its shading units are more efficient or better fed by the memory system.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards. The Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip, the R9 M360 uses the Tropo chip. The process nodes are 40 nm and 28 nm respectively. Transistor counts are 3,100 million versus 1,500 million. Die sizes are 529 mm² versus 123 mm², giving transistor densities of 5.9 million per mm² versus 12.2 million per mm². The Quadro 6000 has no base or boost clock listed, while the R9 M360 has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. Memory clocks differ: the Quadro runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective), the R9 at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory size is 6 GB versus 4 GB, bus width is 384 bit versus 128 bit, and bandwidth is 143.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. Shading units are 448 versus 512, TMUs are 56 versus 32, and ROPs are 48 versus 16. Pixel rates are 16.07 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, texture rates are 32.14 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 1,027.7 GFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W, while the R9 M360 has no TDP listed. The Quadro is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU; the R9 has none listed. Bus interfaces are PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video; the R9 has none listed. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan support is absent on the Quadro, present as 1.2.170 on the R9. OpenGL is 4.6 on both. The Quadro 6000 has dimensions of 248 mm length and 111 mm height; the R9 has none listed. Release dates are December 9, 2010 versus May 4, 2015. The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD; the R9 M360 has no launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M360 in the recorded OpenCL benchmark by 19.9%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial margin that reflects fundamental hardware differences. The Quadro 6000’s wider memory bus, higher bandwidth, more ROPs and TMUs, and greater FP32 throughput all contribute to its dominance in compute workloads. Its 6 GB memory capacity also doubles the R9 M360’s 4 GB, which matters for large datasets typical of professional rendering and simulation.

The R9 M360’s advantages are more modest. It is built on a newer 28 nm process, giving it a higher transistor density and a smaller die. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro 6000 lacks. It has more shading units (512 versus 448) and a faster memory clock (4.5 Gbps effective versus 3 Gbps). Its boost clock of 925 MHz is a feature the Quadro does not list. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark superiority. The R9 M360’s average benchmark score is 8129, which is 17.4% below the Quadro 6000’s 9846. Its percentile rank of 42 versus 47 confirms its lower standing.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload and platform. The Quadro 6000 is a desktop workstation card, requiring dual-slot space, a 6-pin and 8-pin power connection, and a 550 W PSU. It is end-of-life and was released in 2010. Its 204 W TDP is substantial. The R9 M360, by contrast, has no listed power requirements, indicating it is designed for mobile integration. It is also end-of-life, released in 2015. If the task is OpenCL compute and the platform can accommodate a desktop card, the Quadro 6000 is the stronger choice by a wide margin. If the platform is a laptop or a system with limited power delivery, the R9 M360 is the only viable option, but its performance will be lower. The database records no scenario where the R9 M360 wins a head-to-head benchmark. The Quadro 6000 wins the only recorded comparison, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.1%, suggesting it is a stable, mid-range performer in its era. The R9 M360’s nearest rivals are similarly clustered, but at a lower performance level. The verdict is straightforward: for raw compute, the Quadro 6000 is superior; for mobility and modern API support, the R9 M360 has a role, but it cannot match the older card’s throughput.