GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive, one-sided contest between these two GPUs. Across the two shared tests, the AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins outright, with the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 failing to secure a single victory. The most dramatic separation occurs in the Geekbench OpenCL workload, where the RX 6700 scores 92,672 against the Quadro M5000’s 29,365. That is a delta of 68.3 percent, meaning the AMD card delivers more than three times the compute throughput in this API. The gap is nearly as large in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6700 posts 96,619 versus 32,919 for the Quadro, a 65.9 percent deficit for the older NVIDIA part.

These are not marginal improvements; they represent a generational leap in raw execution capability. The RX 6700’s Vulkan score is particularly telling, as it suggests the RDNA 2 architecture extracts far more efficiency from modern graphics APIs than Maxwell 2.0 can manage. While the Quadro M5000 was a professional workstation card in its day, its compute-oriented OpenCL result of 29,365 now places it firmly in entry-level territory. For context, the average benchmark scores of the two cards are nearly identical overall, 31,142 for the Quadro and 31,112 for the RX 6700, but that parity is misleading. The RX 6700’s average is pulled up by a broad suite of tests (including Passmark and Metal scores), whereas the head-to-head results isolate the two workloads where both cards were measured under identical conditions. In those conditions, the AMD card is categorically faster.

The delta percentages in the nearestRivals data reinforce this hierarchy. Against the RX 6700, the Quadro M5000 shows a deltaPct of 0.1 (essentially tied in aggregate scoring), but that figure aggregates across different benchmark suites. When you drill into the specific shared tests, the RX 6700’s margin is overwhelming. The Quadro’s best showing is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,919, which still trails the RX 6700’s equivalent by 65.9 percent. There is no workload in the shared data where the Quadro M5000 comes out ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins decisively, scoring 92,672 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M5000’s 29,365. This represents a 68.3 percent advantage for the AMD card.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Quadro M5000 averages 31,142, while the RX 6700 averages 31,112, a difference of only 0.1 percent. However, this aggregate hides the RX 6700’s dominance in the shared head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the RX 6700’s score in Geekbench Vulkan, and how does it compare?

A: The RX 6700 scores 96,619 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 32,919 for the Quadro M5000. The AMD card leads by 65.9 percent in this test.

Q: Does the Quadro M5000 win any of the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The data shows 0 wins for the Quadro M5000 and 2 wins for the RX 6700 across the two shared tests.

Q: How does the RX 6700 perform in Passmark’s DirectX 12 test?

A: The RX 6700 scores 71 in Passmark’s DirectX 12 test. This is one of its lower individual scores, though the card also posts strong results in other Passmark tests, including 18,931 in G3D and 8,240 in GPU compute.

Q: What is the RX 6700’s Geekbench Metal score?

A: The RX 6700 achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 122,223, which is its highest single benchmark result in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting nearly six years of semiconductor evolution. The Quadro M5000 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The RX 6700, by contrast, uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer node allows AMD to cram 17,200 million transistors into a smaller 335 mm² die, achieving a density of 51.3 million per square millimeter, nearly four times that of the Quadro.

The transistor budget translates into different execution resources. The Quadro M5000 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The RX 6700 scales this up to 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs, while keeping the same 64 ROPs. But the deeper difference lies in feature support. The RX 6700 includes 36 ray tracing cores, a hardware capability entirely absent from the Maxwell-based Quadro. Additionally, the RX 6700 supports FP16 compute at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 22.58 TFLOPS of half-precision throughput, while the Quadro M5000 has no listed FP16 capability. Its FP32 performance is 11.29 TFLOPS, versus just 4.252 TFLOPS for the Quadro.

API support also diverges. The Quadro M5000 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 6700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both cards offer OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6700’s newer architecture is better positioned for modern workloads that leverage ray tracing and mesh shaders. The memory subsystems are equally different: the Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6700 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 160-bit bus, yet still achieves higher bandwidth (320.0 GB/s versus 211.6 GB/s) thanks to faster effective memory clocks of 16 Gbps versus 6.6 Gbps.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. Process node: the Quadro M5000 uses 28 nm, the RX 6700 uses 7 nm. Transistor count: 5,200 million versus 17,200 million. Die size: 398 mm² versus 335 mm². Transistor density: 13.1M/mm² versus 51.3M/mm². Clock speeds are dramatically different, the Quadro has a base clock of 861 MHz and boost of 1038 MHz, while the RX 6700 runs at 1941 MHz base and 2450 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2174 MHz. Memory clocks: 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro, versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the RX 6700.

Memory capacity and type differ: 8 GB GDDR5 versus 10 GB GDDR6. Bus width: 256-bit versus 160-bit. Bandwidth: 211.6 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s. Shading units: 2048 versus 2304. TMUs: 128 versus 144. ROPs are equal at 64. The RX 6700 has 36 ray tracing cores; the Quadro has none. Pixel rate: 66.43 GPixel/s versus 156.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 132.9 GTexel/s versus 352.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.252 TFLOPS versus 11.29 TFLOPS. The RX 6700 also lists FP16 at 22.58 TFLOPS; the Quadro has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical specs also shift. TDP: 150 W for the Quadro, 175 W for the RX 6700. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 8-pin. Both are dual-slot and share the same 267 mm length, but the RX 6700 is slightly shorter in height (110 mm versus 111 mm) and has a specified width of 40 mm, which the Quadro lacks. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2; the RX 6700 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates: June 28, 2015 for the Quadro, June 8, 2021 for the RX 6700. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark shared with the NVIDIA Quadro M5000. With a 68.3 percent lead in OpenCL and a 65.9 percent lead in Vulkan, the RX 6700 delivers roughly three times the compute throughput of the Quadro in these workloads. The Quadro M5000’s sole point of equivalence is its aggregate average score of 31,142, which sits just 0.1 percent above the RX 6700’s 31,112, but that parity is an artifact of the different benchmark suites used, not a reflection of real-world capability in the tests where both cards were measured identically.

For buyers weighing these two end-of-life options, the choice depends on workload. The Quadro M5000, with its Maxwell 2.0 architecture and 8 GB of GDDR5, is a legacy professional card that may still be relevant for older workstation software that relies on specific NVIDIA optimizations or the DVI output it provides. Its 150 W TDP and 6-pin power connector make it a low-power option for systems with older power supplies. However, its 28 nm process and lack of ray tracing hardware put it at a severe disadvantage for any modern compute or gaming workload.

The RX 6700, by contrast, is the clear pick for anyone needing performance. Its 7 nm RDNA 2.0 architecture, 10 GB of GDDR6 memory, and 36 ray tracing cores make it a far more capable GPU for contemporary applications. The 320.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 11.29 TFLOPS of FP32 compute are class-leading for this segment. The 175 W TDP is modest, and the PCIe 4.0 interface future-proofs it for newer platforms. For users who prioritize raw performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, the two benchmarks where data exists, the RX 6700 wins by a landslide. The Quadro M5000 only makes sense in niche legacy scenarios; for everything else, the RX 6700 is the data-backed recommendation.