AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 550 and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The RX 550, a 2017 Polaris part, edges out the 2010 Fermi-based Quadro in the only shared benchmark, but the comparison is far more nuanced than a single score suggests. The RX 550 holds a 12.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (11063 vs 9846), yet the Quadro 6000 counters with a substantial advantage in memory capacity and a completely different feature set aimed at professional workflows. This is not a simple "newer wins" story; it is a tale of architectural philosophy and intended use cases clashing across a seven-year gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results favor the AMD Radeon RX 550. The RX 550 scores 11063 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 manages 9846 points. This translates to a 12.4% delta in favor of the AMD card. In practical terms, the RX 550 is delivering over a tenth more compute throughput in this specific OpenCL workload, which is a meaningful margin for tasks that rely heavily on general-purpose GPU compute.

However, this single data point does not tell the whole story. The RX 550's average benchmark score across all tests is 11075, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro 6000's average score is 9846, sitting at the 47th percentile. While the RX 550 is numerically ahead, both cards are firmly in the mid-pack of overall GPU performance, meaning neither is a performance kingpin in absolute terms. The RX 550's nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, with an average score of 11088, just 0.1% higher. The Quadro 6000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, at 9832, a 0.1% difference. These tight margins underscore that both cards are operating in their own performance strata, with the RX 550 slightly ahead in raw compute but neither dominating its respective tier.

The 12.4% delta in OpenCL is the only head-to-head win registered, with the AMD card taking 1 win and the NVIDIA card 0. This makes the RX 550 the clear winner in the compute test that was run, but the absence of other shared benchmarks (like 3DMark or Vulkan) leaves gaps in the picture. The RX 550 also has additional benchmark data points—3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 127, Geekbench Metal at 20838, and Geekbench Vulkan at 12270—but these have no corresponding Quadro 6000 scores for direct comparison. The Quadro 6000, conversely, has no Vulkan or DX12 scores listed, which hints at its age and limited API support.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the efficiency of the modern manufacturing node. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip with Fermi architecture, belonging to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation. It is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The RX 550 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 6000 offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. This gives the NVIDIA card a 28% advantage in memory bandwidth and triple the capacity, which is critical for large datasets in professional applications. Clock speeds also differ: the RX 550 runs at 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost, while the Quadro 6000's core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The RX 550's higher clocks and newer architecture contribute to its superior compute scores despite the Quadro's larger memory bus.

Feature support tells the story of a generational gap. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This means the AMD card is ready for modern gaming and compute APIs, while the NVIDIA card is stuck with legacy DirectX 11-level features. The RX 550 also includes 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro's higher TMU and ROP counts suggest it is designed for geometry and fill-rate-heavy tasks, even if its raw FP32 performance is lower.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins decisively in raw compute performance and API compatibility. Its 12.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is backed by a higher FP32 throughput of 1,211.4 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 6000's 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The RX 550 also offers 1:1 FP16 performance at 1,211.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 6000 has no FP16 capability listed. This makes the RX 550 a better choice for compute workloads that leverage modern instructions, such as machine learning inference or video encoding tasks that use OpenCL. Its support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) means it can handle contemporary games and applications that require these APIs, whereas the Quadro 6000's DirectX 12 (11_0) and lack of Vulkan will lock it out of many modern titles.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 6 GB of VRAM versus the RX 550's 2 GB, the Quadro can hold far larger textures, geometry datasets, and compute buffers in memory. Its 143.4 GB/s bandwidth is 28% higher than the RX 550's 112.0 GB/s, which is a critical advantage for memory-bound professional workloads like 3D rendering, scientific visualization, or large-scale CAD models. The Quadro 6000 also has a wider 384-bit memory bus, which historically provides better scalability for high-resolution outputs. In terms of fill rate, the Quadro's 48 ROPs give it a 16.07 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the RX 550's 16 ROPs deliver 18.93 GPixel/s—the AMD card wins here due to higher clocks, but the Quadro's texture rate of 32.14 GTexel/s is close to the RX 550's 37.86 GTexel/s.

For professional usage, the Quadro 6000's legacy as a workstation card shines in its display outputs: it offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video, which were standard for multi-monitor enterprise setups in 2010. The RX 550 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more consumer-oriented but lacks the multi-output flexibility of the Quadro. The Quadro 6000 also has a higher TDP of 204 W versus the RX 550's 50 W, meaning it requires a 550 W PSU and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the RX 550 needs no external power and only a 250 W PSU.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the superior all-around performer for anyone prioritizing compute speed, modern API support, and energy efficiency. Its 12.4% lead in OpenCL, higher FP32 throughput, and support for Vulkan and DirectX 12 (12_0) make it the obvious choice for gamers, hobbyists, or developers working with current software stacks. The RX 550's 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it can be dropped into almost any system without PSU or cooling concerns, making it a practical drop-in upgrade for older machines.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000, however, is not without merit for specific use cases. Its 6 GB of VRAM and 143.4 GB/s bandwidth are substantial advantages for memory-heavy professional tasks, even if the card's raw compute is 12.4% slower. If you are working with large 3D scenes, high-resolution textures, or datasets that exceed 2 GB, the Quadro 6000's memory capacity alone may justify its selection, despite its age. Its 48 ROPs and 56 TMUs also indicate it can handle geometry-heavy workloads better than the RX 550, even if the newer card wins on pixel rate.

Strictly from the benchmark data, the RX 550 is the winner for general compute and modern workloads. The Quadro 6000 is a niche product for legacy professional environments where memory capacity trumps raw speed and where Vulkan support is not required. The average benchmark scores (11075 vs 9846) and percentile rankings (50th vs 47th) both favor the AMD card, and the head-to-head OpenCL result confirms this. For most users, the RX 550 is the practical choice; for specialized workstation tasks with massive memory footprints, the Quadro 6000 remains relevant.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 is faster, scoring 11063 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000's 9846, a 12.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 have any advantages over the RX 550?

A: Yes, the Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of VRAM versus the RX 550's 2 GB, and offers 143.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s, which is beneficial for memory-intensive professional tasks.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 6000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support, making the AMD card far more future-proof.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP and requires no external power connectors, while the Quadro 6000 has a 204 W TDP and needs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, along with a 550 W PSU compared to a 250 W PSU.

Q: How do their overall benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 550 has an average benchmark score of 11075, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 6000 averages 9846, sitting at the 47th percentile.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, giving the AMD card a 14% advantage in this metric.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550 | NVIDIA Quadro 6000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 512 | 448 |

| TMUs | 32 | 56 |

| ROPs | 16 | 48 |

| FP32 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,027.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 50 W | 204 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | None |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |

| Length | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | 248 mm (9.8 inches) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2017-04-19 | 2010-12-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 79 USD | 4,399 USD |