AMD Radeon RX 560X vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 and AMD Radeon RX 560X represent two very different approaches to graphics hardware, separated by nearly five years of design philosophy. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute performance, but the specifics of each card’s strengths and weaknesses tell a more nuanced story for potential buyers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Quadro K6000 wins both head-to-head tests by substantial margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K6000 scores 23,749 against the RX 560X’s 17,020, a delta of 39.5%. This is not a close contest; it is a decisive victory for the older NVIDIA professional card. The Vulkan test narrows the gap slightly but still favors the Quadro K6000, which scores 25,409 versus 20,231 for the RX 560X, a 25.6% advantage.

These results are consistent with the average benchmark scores for each card. The Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19,030, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 560X, with an average score of 18,626, sits just one percentile lower at 62. While the average scores are close, the head-to-head deltas reveal that the Quadro K6000’s performance is more concentrated in the OpenCL and Vulkan workloads tested here.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro K6000’s average score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 6600, with a 0% delta, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile, at -0.1%. This suggests the Quadro K6000, despite its age, still trades blows with much newer mainstream cards. The RX 560X, on the other hand, sits close to the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (-0.3%) and the AMD FirePro D500 (0.5%), indicating it is competitive with professional workstation cards from a similar era. In the Vulkan test specifically, the Quadro K6000’s 25.6% lead over the RX 560X is a strong indicator of its superior driver optimization or hardware capabilities in that API. The data does not show a single benchmark where the RX 560X wins, so its case must rest on other advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is significantly faster, scoring 23,749 compared to the AMD Radeon RX 560X’s 17,020, a 39.5% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro K6000 again leads, scoring 25,409 versus 20,231, which is a 25.6% higher score than the RX 560X.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Quadro K6000 averages 19,030 across all benchmarks, while the RX 560X averages 18,626. The Quadro K6000 is ahead, but the margin is much smaller than in the individual tests.

Q: Does the RX 560X win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. Based on the head-to-head data, the RX 560X has zero wins, while the Quadro K6000 has two wins.

Q: How does the RX 560X compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The RX 560X is essentially on par with the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, showing a -0.3% delta, and slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro D500 by 0.5%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The Quadro K6000 ranks in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 560X ranks in the 62nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The Quadro K6000 is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, specifically the GK110B chip, on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a massive chip, with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die. The RX 560X uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture, based on the Polaris 21 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip is far smaller, containing 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story of the process node advantage: the RX 560X packs 24.4M transistors per mm², while the Quadro K6000 only manages 12.6M per mm² on its older process.

The core configurations reflect their different purposes. The Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 render output units (ROPs). The RX 560X has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. These numbers directly explain the fill rate differences: the Quadro K6000 achieves 54.12 GPixel/s and 216.5 GTexel/s, dwarfing the RX 560X’s 20.40 GPixel/s and 81.60 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Quadro K6000 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 12 GB of GDDR5 running at 6 Gbps effective, yielding a bandwidth of 288.4 GB/s. The RX 560X operates on a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 at 7 Gbps effective, providing only 112.0 GB/s. The Quadro K6000’s massive memory bandwidth and capacity are clearly geared toward professional workloads requiring large datasets.

In terms of compute capabilities, the Quadro K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RX 560X is lower, at 2.611 TFLOPS, but it does offer FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio, also 2.611 TFLOPS, which the Quadro K6000 does not specify. Both cards lack dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. For APIs, the Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The RX 560X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights several key differences beyond raw compute. The process node is a major differentiator: 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm for AMD. The power requirements are also drastically different. The Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W and requires two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RX 560X is far more efficient, with a TDP of just 75 W, no external power connectors needed, and a suggested PSU of only 250 W. This makes the RX 560X a drop-in card for many existing systems.

Clock speeds also differ. The Quadro K6000 runs at a base clock of 797 MHz with a boost of 902 MHz. The RX 560X runs significantly higher, with a base of 1175 MHz and a boost of 1275 MHz. Despite the higher clocks, the RX 560X cannot overcome the massive core count advantage of the Quadro K6000.

The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 560X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs also vary. The Quadro K6000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 560X provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions are also distinct, with the Quadro K6000 being 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, whereas the RX 560X is a compact 170 mm (6.7 inches) long. Both are dual-slot cards.

The release dates show the generational gap: the Quadro K6000 launched on 2013-07-22, while the RX 560X launched on 2018-04-10. The Quadro K6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD; the RX 560X has no listed launch MSRP. The Quadro K6000’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi, with a successor of Quadro Maxwell. The RX 560X’s predecessor is Polaris, and its successor is Vega. Both cards are end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The performance data is one-sided, but the use cases are not. The Quadro K6000 wins decisively in any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute. Its 39.5% lead in OpenCL and 25.6% lead in Vulkan make it the superior choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or any professional application that uses these APIs. Its 12 GB of VRAM and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth are critical for handling large datasets, such as high-resolution textures or complex 3D models, without hitting memory limits. The higher pixel and texture rates also benefit tasks like multi-display output or heavy compositing.

The RX 560X, despite losing every benchmark, wins in scenarios where power and physical constraints are paramount. Its 75 W TDP and lack of external power connectors mean it can be installed in compact systems or those with weak power supplies, where the Quadro K6000’s 225 W requirement and 6-pin connectors would be a non-starter. Its shorter length of 170 mm also fits into small form factor cases that cannot accommodate the Quadro K6000’s 267 mm length. For a basic HTPC or a secondary machine, the RX 560X is the practical option.

The API support also favors the RX 560X for modern compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. If a user requires the latest API features or newer game titles that rely on Vulkan 1.3, the RX 560X is the only choice here, even if its raw performance is lower.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear recommendation for raw performance: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 is the stronger card. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by significant margins, offers over twice the FP32 compute throughput (5.196 TFLOPS versus 2.611 TFLOPS), and provides three times the memory capacity and bandwidth. Anyone running professional applications where compute performance and memory size are the primary bottlenecks should choose the Quadro K6000 without hesitation. Its average benchmark score of 19,030, placing it near the RX 6600, shows it can still hold its own against modern hardware in certain workloads.

The AMD Radeon RX 560X is not without merit, but its advantages are entirely outside the benchmark numbers. Its 75 W TDP, compact size, and no-power-connector design make it the only viable option for low-power or small-form-factor builds. Its support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) offers a degree of forward compatibility that the older Quadro K6000 cannot match. For a user who needs a basic, modern, and energy-efficient GPU for light duties, the RX 560X is the sensible pick.

However, if the choice is about performance, the verdict is straightforward. The Quadro K6000 is 39.5% faster in OpenCL and 25.6% faster in Vulkan. The RX 560X never wins a single benchmark. The Quadro K6000 is the clear winner for anyone who values compute power over power efficiency and physical footprint. The RX 560X is a niche product for constrained environments, not a performance competitor.