AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 in every directly comparable benchmark. The two shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, both result in wins for the Quadro P6000, with a final head-to-head tally of 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

The largest gap appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test. The Quadro P6000 scores 73,590, while the Radeon RX 5600M scores 48,843. That is a 50.7% difference, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than half again as fast in this specific workload. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API, and the magnitude of this gap suggests the Quadro P6000 has a substantial advantage in draw call throughput and GPU command processing, not just raw shading power.

The Geekbench OpenCL test is closer, but still clearly favors NVIDIA. The Quadro P6000 scores 66,382 against 59,589 for the Radeon RX 5600M, a delta of 11.4%. OpenCL is a compute-oriented workload, and while the AMD card narrows the gap considerably, it still trails by a meaningful margin. This result aligns with the raw FP32 throughput figures in the database: the Quadro P6000 is rated at 12.63 TFLOPS, while the Radeon RX 5600M is rated at 5.829 TFLOPS, which is less than half.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the gap widens further. The Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69,986, while the Radeon RX 5600M sits at 46,601. However, this average is skewed by the fact that the Radeon RX 5600M has additional tests recorded in the database, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,320 and a Geekbench Metal score of 76,653. The Metal score is particularly interesting, as it is the only recorded benchmark where the Radeon RX 5600M exceeds any of the Quadro P6000's scores, and it does so by a wide margin. That said, the Quadro P6000 has no Metal result recorded, so no direct comparison is possible on that API.

In terms of percentile ranking, the Quadro P6000 sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon RX 5600M is at the 85th percentile. This is a meaningful separation, as the Quadro P6000 is in the top decile of all recorded graphics cards, whereas the Radeon RX 5600M is just inside the top 15%.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 wins outright in OpenCL and Vulkan compute and graphics workloads. For users running applications that leverage these APIs, the choice is clear. The 50.7% Vulkan advantage is especially relevant for modern game engines and professional visualization tools that rely on Vulkan for rendering, while the 11.4% OpenCL lead matters for compute tasks such as physics simulation, image processing, and general GPU compute.

The Radeon RX 5600M does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it does have strengths in other recorded areas. Its Geekbench Metal score of 76,653 is higher than any score the Quadro P6000 has in the database, though the Quadro P6000 has no Metal benchmark recorded. This suggests the Radeon RX 5600M is well suited for macOS environments or applications that use Metal as their primary compute or rendering API. For users in an Apple ecosystem, the Radeon RX 5600M may be the more practical choice despite its lower raw compute ratings.

The Radeon RX 5600M also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,320, a test that the Quadro P6000 has no recorded result for. This is a modern DirectX 12 workload, and its presence in the database indicates the AMD card can handle contemporary DX12 titles, but without a comparable Quadro P6000 score, no direct conclusion can be drawn.

The Quadro P6000 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. It has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. For large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-GPU rendering workloads, the Quadro P6000's memory subsystem is in a different class.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip, and is manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It is a desktop workstation card, released in late 2016, and is now end-of-life. The chip contains 11,800 million transistors on a die size of 471 mm², giving it a transistor density of 25.1 million transistors per mm².

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M is built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, using the Navi 10 chip, and is manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It is a mobile GPU, released in mid-2020, and is also end-of-life. The chip contains 10,300 million transistors on a die size of 251 mm², giving it a transistor density of 41.0 million transistors per mm². The 7 nm process allows significantly higher density, but the Quadro P6000 compensates with a much larger die and more total transistors.

The shader configuration differs substantially. The Quadro P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 394.8 GTexel/s for the Quadro P6000, versus 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s for the Radeon RX 5600M. The Quadro P6000 is roughly twice as fast in both rasterization and texturing throughput.

Clock speeds are interesting. The Quadro P6000 has a base clock of 1506 MHz and a boost clock of 1645 MHz, which are high for a 2016 desktop card. The Radeon RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz, a game clock of 1190 MHz, and a boost clock of 1265 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the Radeon RX 5600M has a much faster FP16 rate: 11.66 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, compared to the Quadro P6000's 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This makes the Radeon RX 5600M dramatically better suited for workloads that use FP16 math, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or media processing pipelines.

Memory technology also differs. The Quadro P6000 uses GDDR5X at 1127 MHz, which translates to 9 Gbps effective, while the Radeon RX 5600M uses GDDR6 at 1500 MHz, which translates to 12 Gbps effective. The Quadro P6000 still wins on total bandwidth due to its wider 384-bit bus, but the Radeon RX 5600M has newer, faster memory chips.

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro P6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The newer PCIe 4.0 standard offers double the bandwidth per lane, which can matter for data transfer between CPU and GPU, though it is largely irrelevant for rendering workloads where the GPU is the bottleneck.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Vulkan workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is significantly faster. It scores 73,590 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 50.7% higher than the Radeon RX 5600M's 48,843.

Q: Does the Radeon RX 5600M win any benchmark?

A: In the direct head-to-head comparison, the Radeon RX 5600M wins zero tests. However, it has a Geekbench Metal score of 76,653 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,320, tests which have no recorded Quadro P6000 result.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are their FP16 capabilities?

A: The Radeon RX 5600M is far stronger in FP16, rated at 11.66 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro P6000 is rated at only 197.4 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, making it effectively a FP32-focused card.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro P6000 is at the 90th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon RX 5600M is at the 85th percentile.

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: The Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, uses a single 8-pin power connector, and recommends a 600 W power supply. The Radeon RX 5600M has a TDP of 150 W, is an integrated mobile GPU with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU rating recorded.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the faster card in every directly comparable benchmark, with an 11.4% lead in OpenCL and a 50.7% lead in Vulkan. It also has four times the memory capacity, 50% more bandwidth, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. For professional workstation tasks, rendering, large dataset compute, or any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro P6000 is the clear choice.

The Radeon RX 5600M is a mobile GPU with a lower TDP of 150 W versus 250 W, and it has a much stronger FP16 rate at 11.66 TFLOPS. It also uses the newer PCIe 4.0 interface and a more advanced 7 nm process. For users in a Metal-centric environment, the Radeon RX 5600M's recorded Metal score of 76,653 suggests it may outperform the Quadro P6000 in that specific API, though no direct comparison is possible. For mobile deployments where power draw and heat are primary constraints, the Radeon RX 5600M is the only option of the two, as the Quadro P6000 is a dual-slot desktop card.

The Quadro P6000 has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. It is a workstation product through and through. The Radeon RX 5600M has no recorded launch MSRP, reflecting its role as an OEM mobile part rather than a retail desktop card.

In short: if you need maximum compute and rendering performance, the Quadro P6000 wins on every measurable head-to-head metric. If you need a mobile solution with strong FP16 throughput and Metal compatibility, the Radeon RX 5600M is the appropriate pick.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 | AMD Radeon RX 5600M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 10,300 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 1035 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 1265 MHz |

| Game Clock | None recorded | 1190 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 240 | 144 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 80.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 182.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.63 TFLOPS | 5.829 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2020-07-06 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,999 USD | None recorded |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 66,382 | 59,589 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 73,590 | 48,843 |

| Percentile | 90 | 85 |