AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisive: the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, though the margin narrows considerably in the Vulkan workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K6000 scores 23749 against the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL's 19549, a 17.7% advantage. That is a substantial gap, but the newer AMD part closes much of the distance in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA card scores 25409 versus 22757, a 10.4% lead.

The OpenCL result aligns with the raw compute specifications of each card. The Quadro K6000 has more than double the shading units (2880 versus 1280) and delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the AMD part manages 2.588 TFLOPS. The 17.7% deficit in OpenCL is actually smaller than the raw compute difference might suggest, meaning the Vega M GL's architecture extracts more efficiency from each shader. The texture rate gap is far larger: 216.5 GTexel/s for the Quadro K6000 against 80.88 GTexel/s for the AMD part, a 2.7x difference that does not fully translate into benchmark scores.

Vulkan tells a different efficiency story. The Vega M GL trails by only 10.4% despite being built on a much smaller die (208 mm² versus 561 mm²) with fewer transistors (5,000 million versus 7,080 million) and consuming far less power (65 W versus 225 W). The AMD architecture's modern API support, including Vulkan 1.3, helps it stay competitive in workloads that leverage modern driver overhead and command processing.

The average benchmark scores in the database further contextualize the pair. The Vega M GL averages 21153 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro K6000 averages 19030, even though the Quadro wins both direct comparisons. This is because the NVIDIA card's Geekbench Metal score of 7932 drags down its average, while the AMD part has no Metal result in the database. The percentile ranking reflects this: the Vega M GL sits at the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K6000 sits at the 63rd. So in direct head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA card is faster, but the AMD part holds a higher overall standing in the full database.

Looking at nearest rivals, the Vega M GL's 21153 average places it just 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21237) and 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (21035). The Quadro K6000's 19030 average is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19036) and sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19089). These proximity scores confirm that both cards occupy similar performance tiers in aggregate, even though the older Quadro wins the direct matchups.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL uses the Polaris 22 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, implementing the GCN 4.0 architecture. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.0 million per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, built on the Kepler architecture. It contains 7,080 million transistors across a 561 mm² die, for a density of only 12.6 million per mm². The process node advantage is clear: AMD fits 24.0M transistors per mm² versus NVIDIA's 12.6M, nearly double the density.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth at 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective). The Quadro K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has three times the memory capacity and 60.9% more bandwidth, but the AMD part uses a much wider bus (1024-bit versus 384-bit) to compensate for its lower memory clock. HBM2 also brings power efficiency advantages that align with the Vega M GL's integrated form factor.

The compute configurations are strikingly lopsided. The Quadro K6000 has 2880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The Vega M GL has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In every category, the NVIDIA card has more hardware: 2.25x the shaders, 3x the TMUs, and 1.5x the ROPs. Peak pixel rate is 54.12 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 32.35 GPixel/s for the AMD part. Texture rate is 216.5 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds run counter to the hardware count. The Vega M GL has a base clock of 931 MHz and a boost of 1011 MHz, while the Quadro K6000 runs at 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost. The AMD part clocks about 17% higher at base and 12% higher at boost, which helps close the gap created by fewer shaders. FP16 support also differs: the Vega M GL delivers 2.588 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Quadro K6000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and physical design reflect their intended markets. The Vega M GL is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 65 W TDP and no power connectors, designed to be embedded in portable devices with display output described as "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro K6000 is a dual-slot add-in card, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested power supply. It offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The TDP difference is enormous: 65 W versus 225 W, a 3.5x gap.

API support favors the AMD part in modern graphics contexts. The Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are end-of-life products, but the Vega M GL launched on 2018-01-31, while the Quadro K6000 launched on 2013-07-22. The Quadro's lineage includes a predecessor in Quadro Fermi and a successor in Quadro Maxwell; the AMD part lists neither predecessor nor successor. The Quadro K6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 23749 against the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL's 19549, a 17.7% advantage.

Q: Does the newer AMD GPU win any benchmark in the database?

A: No, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL wins 0 out of 2 recorded head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins both, including Geekbench Vulkan by 10.4% (25409 versus 22757).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL averages 21153 and sits at the 66th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19030 at the 63rd percentile. The AMD part's higher average comes despite losing both direct head-to-head tests, because the Quadro's Metal score of 7932 pulls its average down.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has a 65 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has a 225 W TDP, is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan API support?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_1), though both offer OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 |

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

| Chip | Polaris 22 | GK110B |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 931 MHz | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1011 MHz | 902 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz, 1400 Mbps effective | 1502 MHz, 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 1024 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 80 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.35 GPixel/s | 54.12 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.88 GTexel/s | 216.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.588 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 65 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | None recorded | 267 mm long, 111 mm high |

| Release Date | 2018-01-31 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | None | Quadro Maxwell |

| Launch MSRP | None | 5,265 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32, 216.5 GTexel/s texture rate, and 54.12 GPixel/s pixel rate are all far above the AMD part's figures. It also wins both recorded benchmark tests, including a 17.7% OpenCL margin and a 10.4% Vulkan margin. The 12 GB memory capacity and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger choice for workloads that need large datasets or sustained bandwidth, such as professional rendering or compute tasks that fit within its Kepler architecture. Its dual-slot design with 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs suits a fixed workstation environment with a 550 W power supply.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL wins on efficiency and modern feature support. It delivers competitive Vulkan performance while consuming 65 W versus 225 W, and it fits as an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors. Its 14 nm process and HBM2 memory allow a 1024-bit bus in a 208 mm² die, and its transistor density of 24.0M per mm² is nearly double the Quadro's 12.6M. The Vega M GL also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), both newer API versions than the Quadro's Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_1). Its 66th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 63rd reflects that it holds its own in the aggregated database despite losing direct head-to-head tests.

The average benchmark scores reveal an important nuance. The Vega M GL averages 21153, which is 11.2% higher than the Quadro's 19030. The database includes a Geekbench Metal score of 7932 for the Quadro, which significantly lowers its average, while the AMD part has no Metal result. For users focused solely on OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the Quadro is faster. For a balanced view across all recorded test types, the Vega M GL has the better aggregate profile.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 if the priority is maximum compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. It wins both head-to-head tests by double-digit margins, offers 12 GB of memory and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth, and delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. Its limitations are the older Kepler architecture, 28 nm process, 225 W power draw, and dual-slot physical footprint. The 5,265 USD launch MSRP positions it as a professional workstation part, and its DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175 support are older than the AMD alternative.

Choose the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL if efficiency, modern API support, and aggregate benchmark standing matter more than raw peak performance. It trails by 10.4% in Vulkan and 17.7% in OpenCL, but it does so at 65 W, in an integrated form factor, with Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) support. Its 66th percentile ranking and 21153 average benchmark score exceed the Quadro's 63rd percentile and 19030 average. The 4 GB HBM2 memory and 179.2 GB/s bandwidth are less than the Quadro offers, but the 1024-bit bus and 14 nm process show a more modern design.

For portable devices where power and space are constrained, the Vega M GL is the only viable option: it is an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display output. For a desktop workstation with a 550 W power supply and dual-slot expansion space, the Quadro K6000 provides the higher performance ceiling. The Quadro also has a longer hardware lineage, with a predecessor in Quadro Fermi and successor in Quadro Maxwell, while the Vega M GL has no recorded predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products, but they serve different physical and performance niches.