AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison
AMD Radeon RX 480
Quadro M6000 24 GB
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB
The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and the AMD Radeon RX 480 are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they were built for entirely different purposes and price points. The recorded benchmark data shows the Quadro winning both shared tests, yet the RX 480 counters with a much higher average score in a different API test. The core distinction is specialization: the Quadro is a professional workstation card with massive memory, while the RX 480 is a mainstream consumer card. The data indicates that the Quadro holds a lead in compute workloads, but the RX 480 offers a broader set of tested capabilities, including a Metal score that the Quadro cannot match.
Where Each One Wins
The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins in the two benchmark tests where both cards were measured head-to-head. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 40,098 against 37,998 for the RX 480, a 5.5% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 46,425 against 45,968, a smaller 1% lead. These two wins give the Quadro a 2-0 record in direct comparisons. The Quadro's average benchmark score of 43,262 places it at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 480's average of 33,997 places it at the 78th percentile. That 5-percentile gap reflects the Quadro's stronger overall standing in the database.
The AMD Radeon RX 480, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has one recorded benchmark the Quadro lacks: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 51,057. This is notably higher than either card's OpenCL or Vulkan results, and it suggests the RX 480 has a particular strength in Apple's Metal API. The RX 480 also records a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, a test absent from the Quadro's record. So while the Quadro wins every shared test, the RX 480 shows capability in tests the Quadro was not measured on.
The Quadro's wins are concentrated in raw compute throughput. Its 6.844 TFLOPS FP32 rate exceeds the RX 480's 5.834 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 106.9 GPixel/s is more than double the RX 480's 40.51 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the Quadro, 213.9 GTexel/s versus 182.3 GTexel/s. These figures explain why the Quadro leads in OpenCL, a compute-heavy workload. The RX 480, by contrast, has no advantage in any shared measurement, but its 8 GB memory and lower power draw make it a different class of hardware.
Architecture Differences
The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Quadro M6000 24 GB uses NVIDIA's GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors into a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3M per mm². The RX 480 uses AMD's Ellesmere chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, giving a much higher density of 24.6M per mm².
Memory configurations differ substantially. The Quadro carries 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. The Quadro's memory clock is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the RX 480's memory clock is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The RX 480's faster memory clock cannot overcome its narrower bus, so the Quadro retains the bandwidth advantage. The Quadro's 24 GB capacity is three times the RX 480's 8 GB, a decisive factor for large datasets.
Compute resources also differ. The Quadro has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro's ROP count is triple that of the RX 480, which drives its massive pixel rate advantage. Clock speeds favor the RX 480: its base clock is 1120 MHz and boost is 1266 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The RX 480 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (5.834 TFLOPS), a feature not recorded for the Quadro.
API support shows minor differences. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro's higher Vulkan revision and DirectX feature level are small but real distinctions. Display outputs differ as well: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 480 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 480 supports newer DisplayPort and adds HDMI, but the Quadro provides more DisplayPort connections.
Power and physical characteristics differ. The Quadro has a TDP of 250 W, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 8-pin power connector. The RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W, a 450 W suggested PSU, and a single 6-pin connector. The Quadro is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 240 mm (9.4 inches) and taller at 111 mm (4.4 inches) versus 95 mm (3.7 inches). The RX 480 has a listed width of 35 mm (1.4 inches), while the Quadro's width is not recorded. Both are dual-slot cards.
The Verdict
The recorded data points to the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB as the stronger card in shared compute benchmarks. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 5.5% and Geekbench Vulkan by 1%, and its 83rd percentile ranking sits above the RX 480's 78th. The Quadro's 24 GB memory, 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 6.844 TFLOPS FP32 make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks where capacity and throughput matter. Its 96 ROPs and 106.9 GPixel/s pixel rate also give it a commanding lead in rasterization-heavy workloads.
The AMD Radeon RX 480, however, is not without merit in the database. Its Geekbench Metal score of 51,057 is the single highest recorded score between both cards, exceeding even the Quadro's best Vulkan result of 46,425. The RX 480 also has a recorded 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, a test the Quadro was not measured on. For users working within the Metal ecosystem or running DX12 titles covered by that specific benchmark, the RX 480 offers verified performance where the Quadro has no data.
Who should pick which? The data supports the Quadro for anyone needing maximum compute performance, large memory capacity, and higher Vulkan API support. The RX 480 is the better choice for those who prioritize Metal performance or who need a lower-power card at 150 W TDP with a 450 W PSU requirement. The Quadro's 250 W TDP and 600 W PSU requirement make it a heavier system burden. The RX 480's smaller physical footprint, 240 mm length versus 267 mm, also suits compact builds.
FAQ
Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?
A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40,098, beating the AMD Radeon RX 480's 37,998 by 5.5%.
Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 480 have any benchmark where it scores higher than the Quadro's best result?
A: Yes. The RX 480 scores 51,057 in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than the Quadro's best recorded score of 46,425 in Geekbench Vulkan.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?
A: The Quadro delivers 317.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, while the RX 480 delivers 256.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus.
Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?
A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 has a density of 24.6M transistors per mm², compared to the Quadro's 13.3M per mm².
Q: What are the power requirements for each card?
A: The Quadro has a 250 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU, while the RX 480 has a 150 W TDP and a 450 W suggested PSU.
Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?
A: The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 480 supports Vulkan 1.3.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The only two direct comparisons in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the Quadro scores 40,098 versus 37,998, a 5.5% margin. This aligns with the compute resource gap: the Quadro has 3,072 shading units versus 2,304, and 6.844 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.834 TFLOPS. The Quadro's 317.4 GB/s bandwidth also helps feed its larger shader array.
In Vulkan, the Quadro wins by a narrower 1%, scoring 46,425 against 45,968. The smaller delta suggests the RX 480's higher clocks, 1266 MHz boost versus 1114 MHz, partially compensate for its lower resource counts. The RX 480's 8 Gbps effective memory speed also helps, but the Quadro's 24 GB capacity and wider bus keep it ahead.
The RX 480's Geekbench Metal score of 51,057 deserves attention. It is 10.0% higher than the Quadro's OpenCL score and 9.9% higher than the Quadro's Vulkan score. This is the single biggest performance number recorded for either card. The RX 480 also posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, giving it a presence in DX12 testing that the Quadro lacks entirely.
Looking at average benchmark scores, the Quadro's 43,262 is 27.2% higher than the RX 480's 33,997. However, the RX 480's average is dragged down by its lower OpenCL and Vulkan scores, while the Metal and DX12 results are not included in that average calculation. The percentile ranking, 83rd for the Quadro versus 78th for the RX 480, reflects this overall gap.
Specification Differences
The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro and 14 nm for the RX 480, with foundries TSMC and GlobalFoundries respectively. Transistor count is 8,000 million versus 5,700 million, and die size is 601 mm² versus 232 mm². Transistor density is 13.3M per mm² for the Quadro and 24.6M per mm² for the RX 480.
Clock speeds differ: the Quadro runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost, while the RX 480 runs at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the RX 480. Memory size is 24 GB versus 8 GB, bus width is 384-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth is 317.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.
Compute unit counts differ: shading units are 3,072 versus 2,304, TMUs are 192 versus 144, and ROPs are 96 versus 32. Pixel rate is 106.9 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 182.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 6.844 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS. The RX 480 has FP16 at 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no recorded FP16.
Power and cooling differ: TDP is 250 W versus 150 W, power connectors are 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin, and suggested PSU is 600 W versus 450 W. Dimensions differ: length is 267 mm versus 240 mm, height is 111 mm versus 95 mm, and only the RX 480 has a recorded width of 35 mm. API support differs: DirectX is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0), and Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.3, with both sharing OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs are 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, versus 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 480.