GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, and the single head-to-head benchmark available underscores that generational gap. The data shows a decisive victory for the AMD part, with the RX 6500M scoring 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro 6000’s 9,846, a delta of 291.9%. This places the modern laptop chip nearly four times ahead of the professional workstation card from 2010, a testament to how far mobile graphics have progressed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a landslide. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M delivers 38,586 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 manages just 9,846. This 291.9% advantage for the RX 6500M is not a marginal lead; it is a complete generational stomping. The RX 6500M’s score is even higher than the average benchmark score of its nearest rivals, which include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10,400 and the AMD Radeon RX 550X at 10,481, demonstrating that it outperforms its entire immediate competitive set in this specific test.

The Quadro 6000’s score of 9,846 places it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6500M sits at the 48th percentile. Despite the massive delta in this single test, their overall percentile rankings are nearly identical, indicating that the RX 6500M’s OpenCL dominance is not necessarily representative of its performance across all workloads. The Quadro 6000’s average benchmark score of 9,846 is remarkably close to its Geekbench OpenCL result, as it only has this one benchmark entry in the database. Meanwhile, the RX 6500M’s average score across nine different tests is 10,362, suggesting that its OpenCL result is an outlier on the high end for this particular chip.

When looking at the RX 6500M’s other benchmark results, the picture becomes more nuanced. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,531, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,669, both respectable numbers for a mobile part. However, its Passmark DirectX scores are surprisingly low, with DirectX 9 at 92, DirectX 10 at 52, DirectX 11 at 70, and DirectX 12 at 34. The Quadro 6000 lacks comparable data in these tests, making a direct comparison impossible, but the RX 6500M’s low DirectX scores relative to its OpenCL performance suggest that its architecture is heavily optimized for compute-style workloads rather than legacy graphics APIs.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the clear winner in compute-oriented tasks, as evidenced by its 291.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. This makes it the superior choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing, such as video encoding, physics simulations, or data processing. The RX 6500M’s 4.915 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 9.830 TFLOPS FP16 performance (via 2:1 ratio) provide substantial raw compute headroom, allowing it to excel in workloads that can take advantage of these capabilities.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000, despite its age, holds advantages in other areas that are not captured by the head-to-head benchmark. Its 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus provides 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly identical to the RX 6500M’s 144.0 GB/s but with a larger frame buffer. This makes the Quadro 6000 potentially better suited for workloads that require large amounts of memory resident on the GPU, such as complex 3D rendering scenes or large dataset visualizations, even if its raw compute throughput is far lower. The Quadro 6000’s 48 ROPs also exceed the RX 6500M’s 32, which could give it an edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios, though its 16.07 GPixel/s pixel rate is dramatically lower than the RX 6500M’s 76.80 GPixel/s.

For gaming or DirectX-based applications, the data is less clear. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro 6000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), marking a significant feature advantage for the AMD part. However, the RX 6500M’s low Passmark DirectX scores suggest that it may not translate this API support into stellar real-world gaming performance, potentially due to its small 4 GB memory capacity and 64-bit bus. The Quadro 6000, with its dual-slot design and professional-grade pedigree, was designed for stability and precision in CAD and DCC applications, though specific benchmark data for these tasks is not present in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans over a decade of development. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 5,400 million transistors into a compact 107 mm² die with a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm TSMC process, containing 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die with a density of just 5.9 million per mm². This density difference is staggering, with the RX 6500M packing nearly 9 times more transistors per square millimeter.

The RX 6500M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 6000. The Quadro 6000 instead has 448 shading units and 56 TMUs, reflecting a much simpler compute architecture. The AMD chip also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed in the database. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the RX 6500M’s DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature level is superior to the Quadro 6000’s 12 (11_0).

The power characteristics highlight the generational efficiency gains. The RX 6500M has a TDP of just 50 W and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops. The Quadro 6000, by contrast, has a 204 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. This makes the Quadro 6000 a power-hungry desktop workstation component, while the RX 6500M is designed for mobile efficiency.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the raw compute numbers. The RX 6500M operates at a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz, while the Quadro 6000 has no base, boost, or game clock listed. Memory configurations diverge significantly: the RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 18 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus at 3 Gbps effective. Despite the bus width difference, their bandwidths are nearly identical, 144.0 GB/s for the RX 6500M versus 143.4 GB/s for the Quadro 6000.

The bus interfaces also differ, with the RX 6500M using PCIe 4.0 x4 and the Quadro 6000 using PCIe 2.0 x16. The RX 6500M has no display outputs listed as it is "Portable Device Dependent," while the Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video outputs. Physical dimensions show the Quadro 6000 is 248 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the RX 6500M has no listed dimensions due to its mobile nature. The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD, while the RX 6500M has no MSRP listed. Production status for both is end-of-life, with the RX 6500M released in January 2022 and the Quadro 6000 in December 2010.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 38,586, which is 291.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 9,846.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6, while the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: They are nearly identical: the RX 6500M delivers 144.0 GB/s, and the Quadro 6000 delivers 143.4 GB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes?

A: The RX 6500M uses a 6 nm process with a 107 mm² die, while the Quadro 6000 uses a 40 nm process with a 529 mm² die.