AMD Radeon R9 M390X vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M390X and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 represent two distinct approaches to professional graphics, separated by two years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear split: the R9 M390X dominates in Metal-based workloads, while the Quadro K6000 takes a decisive lead in Vulkan scenarios. With an average benchmark score of 20,662 versus 19,030, the R9 M390X holds a 8.6% overall advantage, yet this aggregate figure masks the starkly different performance profiles of these two end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic divergence appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD Radeon R9 M390X scores 24,373 against the NVIDIA Quadro K6000’s 7,932. This represents a 207.3% advantage for the AMD part, making it more than three times faster in this specific API. The R9 M390X’s Metal result is particularly striking because it suggests the GCN 3.0 architecture handles Apple’s graphics API with exceptional efficiency, likely due to driver maturity and hardware feature support. In contrast, the Quadro K6000’s Metal score of 7,932 places it far behind, reflecting its older Kepler design’s weaker integration with modern Apple frameworks.

However, the tables turn completely in Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the Quadro K6000 posts 25,409, while the R9 M390X manages only 16,951. The NVIDIA card leads by 33.3%, which is a substantial margin but nowhere near the scale of AMD’s Metal victory. This 8,458-point gap in Vulkan suggests that NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, despite its age, retains strong low-level API performance. The R9 M390X’s Vulkan score of 16,951 is 31.6% lower than its own Metal score, indicating that AMD’s driver stack or hardware scheduling may favor Metal significantly. Meanwhile, the Quadro K6000’s Vulkan result is 220.3% higher than its Metal score, showing an almost inverse relationship between the two APIs.

The head-to-head tally ends at one win each, but the magnitude of these wins is asymmetric. AMD’s 207.3% Metal margin dwarfs NVIDIA’s 33.3% Vulkan edge, meaning that in absolute point differences, the R9 M390X gains 16,441 points in Metal, while the Quadro K6000 gains 8,458 points in Vulkan. When considering the average benchmark score, the R9 M390X’s 20,662 places it among rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20,713, -0.2%) and Intel Arc A750 (20,582, 0.4%), whereas the Quadro K6000’s 19,030 sits near the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0%) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1%). This places both GPUs within the 63rd to 66th percentile of all GPUs, a remarkably close overall standing despite their architectural gulf.

Architecture Differences

The R9 M390X uses AMD’s Amethyst chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm TSMC process with 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K6000, by contrast, employs NVIDIA’s GK110B chip with Kepler architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but packs 7,080 million transistors into a much larger 561 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Kepler chip uses 41.6% more transistors and occupies 53.3% more die area, reflecting a fundamentally different design philosophy: AMD favored a smaller, denser chip, while NVIDIA scaled up with more execution resources.

The shading resources differ substantially. The R9 M390X carries 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro K6000 features 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This gives NVIDIA a 40.6% advantage in shading units, an 87.5% lead in TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. Consequently, the K6000’s peak pixel rate reaches 54.12 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s for the R9 M390X, and its texture rate hits 216.5 GTexel/s against 92.54 GTexel/s. In raw compute, the Quadro K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the R9 M390X offers 2.961 TFLOPS — a 75.5% gap in favor of NVIDIA. Notably, the R9 M390X supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 2.961 TFLOPS, whereas the K6000 lists no FP16 capability at all.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The R9 M390X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro K6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 288.4 GB/s with memory at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). This means the K6000 has three times the capacity and 80.3% more bandwidth. Clock speeds tell another story: the K6000 runs at a base of 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz, while the R9 M390X has no listed base or boost clocks, only memory clocks. The AMD part’s unspecified clock speeds, combined with its lower bandwidth, suggest it relies on architectural efficiency rather than raw throughput.

Power and physical characteristics contrast heavily. The R9 M390X is rated at 75 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, and requires no power connectors, making it suitable for mobile workstations. The Quadro K6000 draws 225 W TDP, occupies a dual-slot design, needs 2x 6-pin power connectors, and recommends a 550 W power supply. Physically, the K6000 measures 267 mm in length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The R9 M390X’s dimensions are not specified, but its MXM form factor indicates a compact, laptop-oriented design. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces, but the K6000 offers fixed display outputs (2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the R9 M390X’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M390X wins decisively in Metal-API workloads, making it the stronger choice for macOS-based applications, iOS development, or any compute task leveraging Apple’s Metal framework. Its 207.3% lead over the Quadro K6000 in this area is the single largest performance gap in the comparison, suggesting that users working with Metal-optimized renderers, video transcoders, or machine learning frameworks would see substantial benefits. The R9 M390X also wins on power efficiency, with a 75 W TDP versus 225 W, meaning it delivers its 2.961 TFLOPS at one-third the power draw. For mobile workstation deployments where battery life and thermal constraints matter, this efficiency is critical.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins in Vulkan performance with a 33.3% advantage, making it preferable for Vulkan-based game engines, professional visualization tools, or cross-platform compute workloads that rely on this API. Its 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 12 GB of VRAM, and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth give it massive raw headroom for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-display configurations. The K6000’s 48 ROPs and 216.5 GTexel/s texture rate suggest superior fill-rate-bound performance, which matters for anti-aliasing, post-processing, or heavy fragment shader work. Additionally, its 902 MHz boost clock ensures sustained performance under load, unlike the R9 M390X’s unspecified clock behavior.

For general-purpose compute, the Quadro K6000’s OpenCL score of 23,749 (from its benchmark list) indicates strong performance in that API, though the R9 M390X lacks a comparable OpenCL result. The R9 M390X counters with a perfect FP16 ratio, offering 2.961 TFLOPS in half-precision, which is valuable for AI inference or graphics workloads that increasingly leverage FP16. Users prioritizing mobile form factors, low power, or Metal ecosystems should choose the R9 M390X; those needing maximum VRAM, Vulkan speed, or absolute compute throughput should select the Quadro K6000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M390X averages 20,662, which is 8.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K6000’s 19,030. This places the R9 M390X at the 66th percentile versus the K6000’s 63rd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do they compare in Metal performance?

A: The R9 M390X scores 24,373 in Geekbench Metal, leading the K6000’s 7,932 by 207.3%. This is the R9 M390X’s single largest advantage and indicates superior Metal API efficiency.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K6000 wins in Geekbench Vulkan with 25,409 against the R9 M390X’s 16,951, a 33.3% margin. This Vulkan lead is the K6000’s only head-to-head victory.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M390X has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s. The K6000 has 200% more capacity and 80.3% more bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP and power requirements?

A: The R9 M390X has a 75 W TDP with no power connectors, while the Quadro K6000 has a 225 W TDP, requires 2x 6-pin connectors, and recommends a 550 W PSU. The R9 M390X uses an MXM Module slot, whereas the K6000 is a dual-slot design.

Q: Which architecture features FP16 support?

A: The R9 M390X supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, delivering 2.961 TFLOPS in half-precision. The Quadro K6000 lists no FP16 capability, only FP32 at 5.196 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R9 M390X | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Amethyst | GK110B |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 366 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.7M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | None listed | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 902 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 128 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.14 GPixel/s | 54.12 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 92.54 GTexel/s | 216.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.961 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.961 TFLOPS (1:1) | None listed |

| TDP | 75 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 5,265 USD |

The specification table reveals that the Quadro K6000 outmatches the R9 M390X in nearly every raw hardware metric — more shaders, higher clocks, larger memory pool, and greater bandwidth — yet the R9 M390X still wins the average benchmark contest. This inversion underscores that architecture efficiency and driver optimization can overcome brute hardware advantages, particularly in API-specific workloads. The R9 M390X’s smaller 75 W footprint and MXM design make it a fundamentally different class of product, aimed at mobile professional use, while the K6000’s dual-slot 225 W design targets desktop workstations. Both are end-of-life products, with the R9 M390X released two years after the K6000, and their divergent benchmark profiles show how API support evolved between the GCN 3.0 and Kepler generations.