AMD Radeon RX 6700S vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers three compute-oriented workloads, and the AMD Radeon RX 6700S wins all three by substantial margins. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Metal, where the RX 6700S scores 72,864 against the Quadro K6000's 7,932, a delta of 818.6%. This is not a close contest; the AMD part delivers roughly nine times the Metal performance of the NVIDIA card, which is consistent with the architectural gap between a 2022 mobile GPU and a 2013 workstation flagship.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700S records 70,965 points versus 23,749 for the Quadro K6000, a 198.8% advantage. The Vulkan result follows a similar pattern: 76,150 for the RX 6700S against 25,409 for the Quadro, a 199.7% lead. Across all three APIs, the AMD GPU at least triples the NVIDIA card's score, and in Metal it approaches a nine-fold improvement. The data leaves no ambiguity: the RX 6700S is categorically faster in these synthetic compute tests.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 6700S has an average benchmark score of 22,154 and sits in the 67th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 (22,170, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Mobile (22,435, delta -1.3%), the GTX 1060 6 GB (21,856, delta +1.4%), and the RX 7700 XT (22,549, delta -1.7%). These deltas are all within roughly two percent, meaning the RX 6700S sits in a tightly packed performance band around the 22,000-point mark.

The Quadro K6000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 19,030 and sits in the 63rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the RX 6600 (19,036, delta 0%), the RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, delta -0.1%), the Tesla K20m (19,089, delta -0.3%), and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, delta +0.4%). The K6000 is thus within a fraction of a percent of these cards, all clustered near 19,000. The gap between the two GPUs in average score is roughly 3,124 points, or about 16.4% in favor of the RX 6700S, which aligns with the head-to-head results showing consistent AMD dominance.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6700S uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm TSMC process. It packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process with 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt gap: the RX 6700S is on a far more advanced fabrication process, allowing nearly four times the transistor density.

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The RX 6700S runs at a 1700 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost, with a game clock of 1890 MHz. The Quadro K6000 is much slower, with a 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD card uses 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the NVIDIA card uses 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) GDDR5. These raw clock differences contribute directly to the compute throughput gap.

Memory configuration favors the Quadro in capacity and bus width but not in bandwidth efficiency. The K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. While the K6000 has more memory and higher raw bandwidth, the RX 6700S achieves a higher pixel rate (128.0 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s) and a slightly higher texture rate (224.0 GTexel/s versus 216.5 GTexel/s). The AMD card also has a higher FP32 throughput at 7.168 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, and supports FP16 at 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the K6000 lacks entirely.

Shader resources differ in configuration. The RX 6700S has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has more shading units and TMUs, yet its much lower clocks and older architecture result in lower realized performance. The RX 6700S also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the K6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175, though it also supports OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical characteristics differ substantially. The RX 6700S is an integrated GPU (IGP) with an 80 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The Quadro K6000 is a dual-slot card drawing 225 W, requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. The K6000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the RX 6700S has no listed dimensions due to its integrated nature. Bus interfaces also diverge: the RX 6700S uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Release timing shows the generational gap. The RX 6700S launched on January 3, 2022, as part of the Radeon RX 6000 series, succeeding Polaris Mobile. The Quadro K6000 launched on July 22, 2013, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. Both are end-of-life products. The K6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD; the RX 6700S has no recorded MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6700S outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 in every recorded head-to-head test. The RX 6700S wins 3 out of 3 comparisons, with margins ranging from 198.8% to 818.6%. Its average benchmark score is 22,154 versus 19,030, a 16.4% advantage, and it sits higher in the overall GPU percentile ranking (67th versus 63rd).

The Quadro K6000 retains advantages in memory capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB) and raw memory bandwidth (288.4 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s), and it has more shading units (2,880 versus 1,792). However, these hardware advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The RX 6700S compensates with far higher clocks, a smaller and denser process node, newer architecture, and support for modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4. The K6000's Kepler architecture is a generation behind, lacking ray tracing and FP16 support.

For users choosing between these two, the data strongly favors the RX 6700S for any compute or graphics workload represented by these benchmarks. The K6000's only practical edge is its larger memory pool, which could matter for workloads that require more than 8 GB of VRAM. But for raw performance, the RX 6700S is the choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700S has an average benchmark score of 22,154, compared to 19,030 for the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, a difference of 3,124 points.

Q: How does the RX 6700S compare to the Quadro K6000 in Geekbench Metal?

A: The RX 6700S scores 72,864, while the K6000 scores 7,932, giving the AMD card an 818.6% advantage.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The RX 6700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Quadro K6000 support ray tracing?

A: No, the Quadro K6000 has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6700S has 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6700S has an 80 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The Quadro K6000 has a 225 W TDP and requires two 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RX 6700S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700S wins decisively in all three head-to-head benchmark categories: Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. Its advantage is most extreme in Metal (818.6% delta), but it also leads by roughly double in OpenCL (198.8%) and Vulkan (199.7%). This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on modern compute APIs, particularly on platforms where Metal is relevant.

The Quadro K6000 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it has structural advantages that could matter in specific scenarios. Its 12 GB memory capacity exceeds the RX 6700S's 8 GB, which could be relevant for memory-bound workloads such as large dataset processing or high-resolution texture storage. Its 384-bit memory bus provides 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, which is higher than the RX 6700S's 224.0 GB/s. For applications that are bandwidth-limited rather than compute-limited, the K6000 might perform relatively better, though the benchmark data does not capture such workloads.

The RX 6700S is also the better choice for power-constrained environments. Its 80 W TDP versus the K6000's 225 W means it generates far less heat and requires no external power connectors. As an integrated GPU, it is suited for portable devices, while the K6000 is a dual-slot card requiring a 550 W PSU and a PCIe slot.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, FP32 performance, modern API support, and efficiency, the RX 6700S is the data-backed pick. For users who need more than 8 GB of VRAM and can tolerate higher power consumption and an older architecture, the Quadro K6000 offers a memory capacity advantage that the benchmarks do not reflect in its score.