AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and NVIDIA Quadro M6000 represent two divergent approaches to high-performance graphics from different eras. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the RX Vega 64 leading in every shared benchmark, yet the Quadro M6000 retains relevance through its larger memory pool and professional positioning. This analysis examines where each card wins, how they compare in raw compute, and what architectural decisions explain their respective strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 emerges as the outright performance winner in all common benchmark tests. It secures victories in both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, with winsA tallying 2 against winsB of 0. The RX Vega 64’s average benchmark score of 50001 places it in the 86th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M6000 trails with an average of 43301 and an 84th percentile ranking. This 15.5% gap in average score is substantial, indicating that the RX Vega 64 delivers meaningfully higher compute throughput in general-purpose and graphics workloads.

The RX Vega 64’s strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 12.66 TFLOPS is nearly double the Quadro M6000’s 6.844 TFLOPS, making it the superior choice for tasks that leverage raw shader arithmetic. In Vulkan workloads, the RX Vega 64 scores 67032 versus 46913, a 42.9% advantage that suggests better driver optimization for modern APIs. Similarly, OpenCL performance shows a 57.6% lead, with scores of 62552 and 39688 respectively.

The Quadro M6000, despite losing every direct comparison, wins in areas not captured by the benchmark suite. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory exceeds the RX Vega 64’s 8 GB HBM2, providing more capacity for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Quadro also features 96 ROPs compared to 64 on the RX Vega 64, which contributes to a higher pixel rate of 106.9 GPixel/s versus 98.94 GPixel/s. In pure rasterization fill-rate scenarios, the Quadro M6000 holds an edge that the compute-focused benchmarks do not reflect.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 delivers 12.66 TFLOPS FP32, which is 85% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M6000’s 6.844 TFLOPS. This makes the RX Vega 64 the clear choice for compute-intensive applications that rely on single-precision floating-point math.

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

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the RX Vega 64 scores 67032, outperforming the Quadro M6000’s 46913 by 42.9%. The RX Vega 64’s support for Vulkan 1.3 versus the Quadro’s 1.4 suggests the AMD card is better optimized for modern graphics APIs despite the NVIDIA card having a newer specification version.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 have any memory advantage over the RX Vega 64?

A: Yes, the Quadro M6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro provides 50% more capacity, while the RX Vega 64 offers 52.4% more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The RX Vega 64 scores 62552 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Quadro M6000’s 39688 by 57.6%. This substantial lead indicates stronger general-purpose compute capabilities on the AMD card, likely due to its higher shading unit count and clock speeds.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The RX Vega 64 uses a 14 nm process with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, achieving 25.3M transistors per mm². The Quadro M6000 uses a 28 nm process with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, yielding 13.3M transistors per mm². The AMD card packs nearly twice the density.

Q: Which card is better suited for professional visualization workloads?

A: The Quadro M6000, with its Quadro Maxwell lineage and 12 GB memory, is designed for professional use, supporting DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, benchmark data shows the RX Vega 64 outperforms it in all shared tests, so the Quadro’s advantage lies primarily in memory capacity and its professional driver ecosystem rather than raw performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a dominant performance from the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 across both common benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX Vega 64 scores 62552 against the Quadro M6000’s 39688. This represents a 57.6% delta, the largest margin of victory in any test. The scale of this difference suggests that the RX Vega 64’s 4096 shading units operating at up to 1546 MHz boost clock provide a massive compute advantage over the Quadro’s 3072 shading units at a 1114 MHz boost. The AMD card’s 2:1 FP16 ratio of 25.33 TFLOPS further enhances its compute flexibility, though the Quadro lacks FP16 support entirely.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX Vega 64 again wins, scoring 67032 versus 46913. The 42.9% delta is smaller than the OpenCL gap but still decisive. This benchmark likely benefits from the RX Vega 64’s newer GCN 5.0 architecture and its higher memory bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s, which allows faster data movement during Vulkan workloads. The Quadro M6000’s 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, while respectable, cannot match the HBM2 throughput of the AMD card.

When considering the broader benchmark context, the RX Vega 64’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1669 adds another data point, though no equivalent exists for the Quadro M6000 in this test. The absence of this comparison means the DX12 picture is incomplete, but the existing results paint a consistent story: the RX Vega 64 is significantly faster in compute-oriented tasks. The Quadro M6000’s only advantages appear in pixel rate (106.9 vs 98.94 GPixel/s) and texture rate, where its 96 ROPs help it achieve higher fill rates despite lower overall compute.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ fundamentally in their memory subsystems. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 483.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card offers 52.4% more bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card provides 50% more capacity. Memory clock speeds also differ: the RX Vega 64 runs at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective), and the Quadro at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), with the GDDR5 module clocking higher but on a narrower bus.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The RX Vega 64 packs 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with pixel rate of 98.94 GPixel/s and texture rate of 395.8 GTexel/s. The Quadro M6000 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, achieving 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s. The RX Vega 64 leads in shader and texture throughput but trails in pixel fill rate due to fewer ROPs. FP32 performance favors AMD at 12.66 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS, and only AMD offers FP16 at 25.33 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The RX Vega 64 has a TDP of 295 W with 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Quadro M6000 draws 250 W with a single 8-pin connector. Both suggest a 600 W power supply. The RX Vega 64 measures 280 mm in length and 40 mm in width, whereas the Quadro M6000 is 267 mm long with no listed width. Both are dual-slot cards with PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. Display outputs vary: the RX Vega 64 provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro M6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and philosophical. The RX Vega 64 uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with a die size of 495 mm² containing 12,500 million transistors. This yields a transistor density of 25.3M per mm², reflecting the mature 14 nm node. The Quadro M6000 relies on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, with a larger die of 601 mm² but fewer transistors at 8,000 million, resulting in a density of only 13.3M per mm². The RX Vega 64’s smaller, denser die enables higher clock speeds and better power efficiency per transistor.

The RX Vega 64’s GCN 5.0 architecture brings support for FP16 compute at a 2:1 ratio, a feature absent from the Quadro M6000’s Maxwell 2.0 design. This allows AMD to double its FP32 throughput in mixed-precision workloads, a significant advantage for machine learning and scientific computing. The Quadro M6000, lacking FP16, is limited to FP32 throughout, which caps its compute versatility. The Vega architecture also supports newer display standards with DisplayPort 1.4a and HDMI 2.0b, whereas the Quadro’s DisplayPort 1.2 is an older specification.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the RX Vega 64 lists Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro M6000 lists Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan version on the Quadro suggests more recent driver updates, yet benchmark results show the RX Vega 64 outperforming it in Vulkan tests anyway. The Quadro’s Maxwell architecture was designed for professional workloads, with its 12 GB memory targeting large scenes, but the raw compute efficiency of GCN 5.0 proves superior in measured performance. The RX Vega 64’s successor is Navi, while the Quadro M6000’s is Quadro Pascal, indicating both are end-of-life products with distinct evolutionary paths.