AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, if not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 across the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P6000 posts a score of 66382 against the RX Vega 64’s 62552, a 6.1% lead. That is a solid, repeatable margin in a compute-oriented workload, one that reflects the Quadro’s tuned driver stack and professional-grade silicon.

The gap widens noticeably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P6000 reaches 73590 versus the Vega 64’s 67032. That 9.8% advantage is significant for any GPU-bound rendering task using the Vulkan API. The Quadro does not just win; it wins by a progressively larger margin as the API layer shifts toward modern, low-overhead graphics. The RX Vega 64, by contrast, is competitive in OpenCL but loses nearly ten percent of its ground in Vulkan, suggesting its architecture does not extract the same efficiency from that API.

The head-to-head tally is 2 wins for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD. No benchmark in the shared set favors the Vega 64. That is a decisive sweep, though the sample size is limited to two tests. The database also records the P6000’s average benchmark score at 69986, while the Vega 64’s average sits at 50001. That 40% overall gap is far larger than any single delta in the head-to-head, which indicates the Vega 64’s average is dragged down by workloads where its 8 GB memory pool or its older GCN scheduler becomes a limiting factor. The P6000’s average, meanwhile, is buoyed by its 24 GB frame buffer and consistent compute throughput.

For context, the P6000’s nearest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, which scores 69870, a delta of just 0.2%. The RTX A3000 Mobile lands at 70140, 0.2% above the P6000, and the Radeon RX 6600 LE beats it by 1.2% at 70829. The P6000 is not a top-tier performer by modern standards, but it sits squarely in a competitive mid-high band. The Vega 64’s nearest rivals tell a different story: the RTX 5070 Ti scores 49957, just 0.1% behind, while the Intel Arc A550M trails by 0.5% at 49737. The RX 6900 XT leads the Vega 64 by 1.9%, and the RX 6800 XT trails by 3.1%. The Vega 64 is a mid-pack card in the database, surrounded by consumer gaming GPUs, whereas the P6000 is bracketed by professional workstation parts.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 471 mm² and packs 11,800 million transistors, yielding a density of 25.1M per mm². The RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip on AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is larger at 495 mm², with 12,500 million transistors and a density of 25.3M per mm². The transistor counts and densities are nearly identical, but the underlying architectures diverge sharply.

Clock speeds favor the P6000. Its base clock is 1506 MHz, boosting to 1645 MHz. The Vega 64 starts lower at 1247 MHz and boosts to 1546 MHz. That 99 MHz boost advantage for NVIDIA translates into higher peak throughput in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. The memory subsystems are even more divergent. The P6000 pairs 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, running at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), for a bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s. The Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a vastly wider 2048-bit bus, running at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective), for a bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s. The Vega 64 has more raw bandwidth, but the P6000 has three times the capacity. In professional workloads where datasets exceed 8 GB, the P6000 simply runs, while the Vega 64 spills to system memory or fails outright.

Compute unit counts are close. The P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, but only 64 ROPs. The Vega 64’s extra shaders and TMUs do not overcome its ROP deficit in pixel-heavy tasks. Pixel rate for the P6000 is 157.9 GPixel/s versus 98.94 GPixel/s for the Vega 64. Texture rates are nearly identical at 394.8 GTexel/s and 395.8 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 compute is also a tie: 12.63 TFLOPS for the P6000, 12.66 TFLOPS for the Vega 64. The real split comes in FP16. The P6000 delivers only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the Vega 64 hits 25.33 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. For any workload using FP16 acceleration, the Vega 64 is dramatically faster, but the P6000 was not designed for that path.

Power and physical specs differ meaningfully. The P6000 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector. The Vega 64 draws 295 W and needs two 8-pin connectors. Both are dual-slot cards, and both suggest a 600 W PSU. The P6000 is shorter at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 280 mm (11 inches) for the Vega 64. Both are 111 mm tall. The Vega 64 is 40 mm wide, while the P6000’s width is not recorded. Display outputs also differ: the P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Vega 64 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support is similar for DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the P6000 supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 for the Vega 64.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 66382 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the RX Vega 64’s 62552 by 6.1%. The margin is consistent but not overwhelming.

Q: Does the RX Vega 64 win any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two benchmarks recorded for both cards, the P6000 wins both: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The head-to-head tally is 2 wins for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD.

Q: Why is the Vega 64’s average benchmark score so much lower than the P6000’s?

A: The P6000 has an average of 69986, while the Vega 64 averages 50001. That gap comes from additional benchmarks in the database where the Vega 64’s 8 GB memory capacity and 64 ROPs limit its performance, particularly in memory-heavy or pixel-heavy workloads.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX Vega 64 has 483.8 GB/s using HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The P6000 has 432.8 GB/s using GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus. The Vega 64 wins on bandwidth, but the P6000 has 24 GB versus 8 GB of capacity.

Q: Is the Vega 64 better for FP16 compute?

A: Yes, by a massive margin. The Vega 64 delivers 25.33 TFLOPS at a 2:1 FP16 ratio, while the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. For FP16-accelerated workloads, the Vega 64 is in a different class.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The P6000 has a 250 W TDP and uses one 8-pin connector. The Vega 64 has a 295 W TDP and uses two 8-pin connectors. Both recommend a 600 W PSU.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ.

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 1247 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 1546 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) | 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 483.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 240 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 98.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 395.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.63 TFLOPS | 12.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 295 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 280 mm (11 inches) |

| Width | Not recorded | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,999 USD | 499 USD |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2017-08-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | Polaris |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Navi |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 66382 | 62552 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 73590 | 67032 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 69986 | 50001 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 90 | 86 |

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Quadro P6000 is the stronger card in every shared benchmark and in most aggregate metrics. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 6.1% and Geekbench Vulkan by 9.8%. It has 24 GB of memory versus 8 GB, a higher boost clock, more ROPs, a higher pixel rate, lower power draw, and a smaller physical footprint. Its average benchmark score is 69986, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Vega 64’s 50001 and 86th percentile. The P6000’s nearest rivals are professional workstation cards, while the Vega 64’s nearest rivals are consumer gaming GPUs. That positioning alone tells you where each card belongs.

The Vega 64 does have genuine strengths. Its 483.8 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the P6000’s 432.8 GB/s. Its FP16 throughput of 25.33 TFLOPS is over 100 times the P6000’s 197.4 GFLOPS. It has more shading units and TMUs. But those advantages do not translate into wins in the recorded benchmarks. The Vega 64 loses both head-to-head tests, and its average score is nearly 30% lower. For any buyer choosing between these two based on the database, the P6000 is the clear performance pick.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro P6000 wins in: compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, memory capacity for large datasets, pixel throughput with 96 ROPs and 157.9 GPixel/s, efficiency at 250 W versus 295 W, physical size at 267 mm versus 280 mm, and overall benchmark standing at the 90th percentile. It also supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the Vega 64’s 1.3.

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 wins in: memory bandwidth with 483.8 GB/s on HBM2, raw FP16 compute at 25.33 TFLOPS, shading unit count at 4096 versus 3840, texture units at 256 versus 240, and transistor count at 12,500 million versus 11,800 million. It also has a wider 2048-bit memory bus, which helps in bandwidth-sensitive tasks that fit within its 8 GB capacity.

For a professional workstation handling large render scenes, simulation datasets, or multi-application compute queues, the P6000 is the logical choice. For a niche workload that leverages FP16 acceleration or requires maximum memory bandwidth with modest capacity needs, the Vega 64 has a theoretical edge, but the recorded benchmarks do not show that edge materializing in practice. The P6000 wins where it matters in the database, and that is the final word.