AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB are both end-of-life products from different eras, with the AMD card built on a 14 nm process and the NVIDIA card on a 28 nm process. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the Radeon RX Vega 64 holds a 2–0 win record in head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 50,001 compared to the Quadro’s 43,262. The Radeon also sits at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, three points higher than the Quadro’s 83rd percentile, indicating that it outperforms a larger share of the current GPU landscape.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 as the stronger performer for general compute and graphics workloads, but the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB serves a distinct purpose. If raw compute performance is the priority, the Radeon is the clear choice: it wins both available head-to-head benchmarks, delivering a 56% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL and a 44.4% higher score in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 50,001 is 15.6% above the Quadro’s 43,262, and it even edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT by 3.1% in average score, showing that the older Vega architecture still competes with newer mid-range parts.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB, however, should be picked by users who prioritize memory capacity over speed. Its 24 GB of GDDR5 memory is triple the Radeon’s 8 GB, and that capacity is the single biggest differentiator between these two cards. For workloads that require large datasets to reside on the GPU, such as certain professional visualization or machine learning inference tasks, the Quadro’s memory advantage can outweigh its lower compute throughput. Its 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is modest compared to the Radeon’s 12.66 TFLOPS, but the card still holds its own in the 83rd percentile, trading blows with modern GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, which scores 0.1% higher on average.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 wins decisively in compute-heavy and graphics-accelerated scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 62,552 crushes the Quadro’s 40,098, a 56% advantage that suggests the Radeon is far better suited for general-purpose GPU compute. The Vulkan gap is narrower but still substantial: 67,032 versus 46,425, a 44.4% lead. These results indicate that the Radeon excels in applications that leverage modern APIs and parallel processing, from gaming to content creation. Its FP32 throughput of 12.66 TFLOPS, combined with a texture rate of 395.8 GTexel/s, gives it a clear edge in shader-bound workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB wins on memory capacity and bandwidth efficiency per watt, though not on raw speed. Its 24 GB frame buffer is the headline feature, and while its 317.4 GB/s bandwidth is lower than the Radeon’s 483.8 GB/s, the larger pool of memory means it can handle datasets that would exceed the Radeon’s 8 GB limit. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate at 106.9 GPixel/s versus the Radeon’s 98.94 GPixel/s, which could give it a slight advantage in fill-rate-limited tasks. Its 250 W TDP is also lower than the Radeon’s 295 W, making it a more power-efficient option for sustained professional workloads, though both cards require a 600 W power supply.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The Radeon features 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, with a boost clock of 1546 MHz. Its memory subsystem uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and outputs via 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, by contrast, uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 8,000 million transistors on a larger 601 mm² die, but with a lower transistor density of 13.3 million per mm². The Quadro has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with a boost clock of 1114 MHz. Its memory is 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s. Notably, the Quadro has no FP16 support, while the Radeon offers 25.33 TFLOPS of FP16 performance via a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer version than the Radeon’s 1.3, and outputs via 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Both cards are dual-slot, but the Radeon requires 2x 8-pin power connectors while the Quadro needs only 1x 8-pin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, with 12.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to the Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS. It also wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 56% and the Vulkan test by 44.4%.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 24 GB have any advantage in memory?

A: Yes, it has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the Radeon’s 8 GB of HBM2, though the Radeon has higher bandwidth at 483.8 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s.

Q: How do these cards compare to modern GPUs?

A: The Radeon scores 0.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti on average, while the Quadro scores 0.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER. The Radeon also beats the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 1.9%.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro has a lower TDP of 250 W versus the Radeon’s 295 W, and it uses a single 8-pin power connector versus the Radeon’s 2x 8-pin connectors.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro, with 106.9 GPixel/s versus the Radeon’s 98.94 GPixel/s, despite the Radeon having a much higher texture rate of 395.8 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is lopsided in favor of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, which wins both available tests by significant margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon scores 62,552 against the Quadro’s 40,098, a difference of 56%. This is the largest gap between the two cards in any metric, and it reflects the Radeon’s superior FP32 compute capability, which is nearly double that of the Quadro at 12.66 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. The Radeon’s higher clock speeds, with a boost of 1546 MHz versus 1114 MHz, and its larger shading unit count of 4,096 versus 3,072, contribute to this dominance in OpenCL workloads.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar but slightly smaller advantage for the Radeon, with a score of 67,032 versus 46,425, a 44.4% lead. This test is more representative of modern graphics API performance, and the Radeon’s newer GCN 5.0 architecture with Vulkan 1.3 support appears to handle the API more efficiently than the Quadro’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture with Vulkan 1.4. Despite the Quadro’s newer Vulkan version, the Radeon’s raw hardware advantages—higher texture rate, more shading units, and faster memory bandwidth—prove decisive. The Quadro’s only statistical win comes in pixel rate, where its 106.9 GPixel/s edges out the Radeon’s 98.94 GPixel/s, but this single metric does not translate into a benchmark victory in the tests recorded.

When looking at broader performance context, the Radeon’s average benchmark score of 50,001 places it 15.6% ahead of the Quadro’s 43,262. The Radeon’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, which scores 49,957, a mere 0.1% difference, while the Quadro’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268, also a 0% difference. This suggests that while both cards are aging, the Radeon is competing with a higher tier of modern hardware, whereas the Quadro is positioned against mid-range mobile parts. The Radeon also outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT by 3.1% in average score, a notable result given that the RX 6800 XT is a much newer card.