NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive generational gap between these two NVIDIA cards. In the two shared benchmark tests, the GeForce RTX 5080 wins outright, with the Quadro P6000 trailing by a substantial margin in both compute and graphics workloads.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5080 scores 235901, while the Quadro P6000 manages 66382. That is a 71.9% deficit for the older card, meaning the RTX 5080 delivers more than three and a half times the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The delta is stark: the P6000's result places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs in the database, yet it is utterly outclassed here.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RTX 5080 posts 255450, compared to 73590 for the P6000, a 71.2% gap. Again, the Pascal card is left far behind. The RTX 5080's Vulkan score is not just higher; it is dramatically higher, reflecting fundamental architectural advances rather than a marginal clock speed advantage.

The head-to-head tally is 2 wins for the RTX 5080, 0 for the Quadro P6000. There are no benchmark results where the P6000 comes out ahead. The data does not offer a single bright spot for the professional card in these two tests.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69986, while the GeForce RTX 5080 averages 56083. The P6000's average is inflated by its two strong results, whereas the RTX 5080's average is dragged down by several low-scoring PassMark tests in its broader suite.

Q: How does the RTX 5080 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 5080 sits 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon 8060S, 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB, and 2.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X. It is 2.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE. Its nearest rival is the Radeon 8060S, with a delta of just 0.6%.

Q: What about the Quadro P6000's position among its peers?

A: The P6000 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX. It trails the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE by 1.2%. Its closest competitor is the Radeon Pro WX 8200, with a near-tie at 0.2% separation.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5080 has 960.0 GB/s, while the Quadro P6000 has 432.8 GB/s. The newer card more than doubles the older card's bandwidth, a direct result of its GDDR7 memory and 256-bit bus versus the P6000's GDDR5X on a 384-bit interface.

Q: Do the two cards support the same APIs?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the RTX 5080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The RTX 5080 also includes hardware ray tracing and tensor cores, which the P6000 lacks entirely.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 5080 achieves 293.1 GPixel/s, compared to 157.9 GPixel/s for the P6000. The RTX 5080's fill rate is roughly 85% higher, reflecting both its higher clock speeds and larger ROP count.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to entirely different generations, and the architectural gap is enormous. The Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip built on TSMC's 16 nm process, featuring 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. The GeForce RTX 5080 uses the GB203 chip on a 5 nm process, packing 45,600 million transistors into a smaller 378 mm² die. That translates to a transistor density of 25.1M per mm² for the P6000 versus 120.6M per mm² for the RTX 5080, a nearly fivefold increase.

The P6000 is based on the Pascal architecture, while the RTX 5080 uses Blackwell 2.0. This is not a minor refresh; it is a complete redesign. The P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 5080 counters with 10752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. The sheer scale difference in compute units is the primary driver of the benchmark gap.

Ray tracing and tensor cores are present only on the RTX 5080. It has 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores. The P6000 has none. This means the RTX 5080 can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, while the P6000 relies entirely on traditional rasterization. The FP16 throughput reflects this: the RTX 5080 achieves 56.28 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. That is a difference of more than two orders of magnitude in half-precision compute.

Memory technology also diverges sharply. The P6000 uses GDDR5X with a 384-bit bus, while the RTX 5080 uses GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the RTX 5080's bandwidth is more than double, at 960.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s. The memory clock is 1875 MHz (30 Gbps effective) for the RTX 5080, compared to 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) for the P6000.

The RTX 5080 also has a much higher power envelope, rated at 360 W versus 250 W for the P6000. It requires a 16-pin power connector and a 750 W suggested PSU, while the P6000 uses a single 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RTX 5080 is also physically larger: 304 mm long, 137 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, versus the P6000's 267 mm length and 111 mm height. Both are dual-slot cards.

The PCIe interface differs as well. The RTX 5080 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the P6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are also different: the RTX 5080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the GeForce RTX 5080 is the superior performer in raw compute and graphics workloads. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are roughly three and a half times higher than the Quadro P6000's. The RTX 5080 also brings modern features like ray tracing, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, none of which exist on the P6000.

However, the Quadro P6000 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 69986 is higher than the RTX 5080's 56083, though this is a quirk of the test suite composition. The P6000's two recorded results are both strong, while the RTX 5080 has a broader set of tests that includes low-scoring PassMark entries. In terms of actual compute performance, the RTX 5080 wins decisively.

The P6000 also offers more memory capacity at 24 GB versus 16 GB, which could matter for certain large datasets, though the RTX 5080's bandwidth advantage mitigates this. The P6000 is end-of-life, while the RTX 5080 is active and has a successor planned. The RTX 5080's launch MSRP is 999 USD, and the P6000's launch MSRP was 5,999 USD.

For users seeking maximum compute performance, modern API support, and hardware ray tracing, the RTX 5080 is the clear choice. For those who need more VRAM capacity or are constrained by legacy PCIe 3.0 slots, the P6000 remains a functional option, but the data shows it is far behind in every head-to-head test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 45,600 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 378 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 120.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 2295 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 2617 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) | 1875 MHz (30 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 10752 |

| TMUs | 240 | 336 |

| ROPs | 96 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 84 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 336 |

| Pixel Rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 293.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 879.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.63 TFLOPS | 56.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | 56.28 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 360 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 750 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | 304 mm x 137 mm x 40 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2025-01-29 |