GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 decisively outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 across every benchmark in this comparison, winning all three head-to-head tests by substantial margins. Despite the Quadro K6000's higher launch MSRP and larger memory pool, the data shows the Radeon Pro 5700 delivering 50-87% higher scores depending on the API, making it the clear performance leader in this matchup. The Quadro K6000, however, retains relevance through its 12 GB frame buffer and established Kepler architecture, appealing to workloads where capacity trumps raw compute speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test reveals the most dramatic divide between these two cards. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 scores 60,126, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 manages only 7,932, a delta of -86.8% for the Quadro. This is not a marginal gap; the Radeon Pro 5700 delivers roughly 7.6 times the Metal performance. For macOS-centric workflows that leverage Metal, this result is definitive. The Quadro K6000's score places it far outside competitive range, and the data indicates the Kepler architecture lacks the modern API efficiency that RDNA 1.0 brings to Apple's framework.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5700 again takes a commanding lead, posting 52,787 points against the Quadro K6000's 23,749. The -55% delta for the Quadro means the AMD card is slightly more than twice as fast in this cross-platform compute test. OpenCL remains a common denominator for professional applications, and this margin shows that the Radeon Pro 5700's higher FP32 throughput, 6.221 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS, translates into real-world compute advantages. The Quadro's 2,880 shading units outnumber the Radeon's 2,304, but the AMD GPU's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome that deficit.

The Vulkan results follow the same pattern, with the Radeon Pro 5700 scoring 51,289 versus the Quadro's 25,409, a -50.5% delta. This is the closest of the three contests, yet still represents a doubling of performance. Vulkan's low-level access favors the RDNA 1.0 design's modern scheduling and memory management. The Quadro K6000, released in 2013, supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Radeon Pro 5700 supports Vulkan 1.4, and the benchmark data reflects that API maturity gap. Across all three tests, the AMD card wins by an average margin that leaves no room for interpretation: the Radeon Pro 5700 is the faster GPU in every measured scenario.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on the Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700, by contrast, uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process, also TSMC, with 10,300 million transistors in a much smaller 251 mm² die, achieving 41.0 million transistors per square millimeter. That density advantage is more than triple, and it explains how AMD fits more compute resources into less silicon.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Quadro K6000 offers 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5700 provides 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but reaches 384.0 GB/s due to the newer memory standard's higher effective data rate, 12 Gbps versus 6 Gbps. Despite having 33% less capacity, the AMD card offers 33% more bandwidth, which benefits texture-heavy and compute-bound workloads that stream data continuously.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. While the NVIDIA card has more shaders and TMUs, the AMD card's ROP advantage (64 vs 48) contributes to its higher pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s. The FP32 output favors the Radeon Pro 5700 at 6.221 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS, and the AMD card also supports FP16 at 12.44 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and form factor differences are stark. The Quadro K6000 is a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, requiring two 6-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. The Radeon Pro 5700 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 130 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 300 W suggested PSU, designed for board integration rather than standalone installation. The Quadro measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Radeon Pro 5700 has no listed dimensions. The NVIDIA card outputs via 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2; the AMD card has no display outputs at all, indicating it is meant for compute or mobile Mac implementations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has an average benchmark score of 19,030, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 scores 18,189. The Quadro edges ahead by roughly 4.6% in aggregate, despite losing every head-to-head test.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 5700 win all head-to-head tests but have a lower average score?

A: The average benchmark score includes a broader set of tests beyond the three head-to-head comparisons. The Radeon Pro 5700's additional PassMark results, such as 71 in DirectX 10, 78 in DirectX 11, and 48 in DirectX 12, pull its average down, while the Quadro K6000's three Geekbench scores are all relatively close to its average.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The Quadro offers 50% more capacity, but the Radeon Pro 5700 provides higher bandwidth at 384.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro K6000 has a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with two 6-pin connectors. The Radeon Pro 5700 has a 130 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 achieves 41.0 million transistors per mm² on its 7 nm process, versus 12.6 million per mm² for the Quadro K6000 on 28 nm. This is a 3.3x density advantage for AMD.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro K6000 versus 7 nm for the Radeon Pro 5700. Transistor count favors AMD at 10,300 million versus 7,080 million, but die size favors the Quadro's larger 561 mm² versus 251 mm². Transistor density is 12.6M/mm² for NVIDIA and 41.0M/mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds: the Quadro runs at 797 MHz base and 902 MHz boost, while the Radeon Pro 5700 runs at 1243 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the Radeon. Memory size differs: 12 GB GDDR5 versus 8 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 384-bit for NVIDIA and 256-bit for AMD, but bandwidth favors AMD at 384.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s.

The shading unit count is 2,880 for the Quadro versus 2,304 for the Radeon. TMUs are 240 versus 144, and ROPs are 48 versus 64. Pixel rate is 54.12 GPixel/s for the Quadro and 86.40 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 216.5 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 194.4 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 output is 5.196 TFLOPS versus 6.221 TFLOPS; the Radeon adds FP16 at 12.44 TFLOPS, which the Quadro does not support.

TDP is 225 W versus 130 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are 2x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 300 W. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 versus no outputs. The Quadro has dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height; the Radeon has none listed. DirectX support is 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is 1.2.175 versus 1.4. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 5,265 USD; the Radeon has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins every benchmark in this comparison. Its strengths are concentrated in modern API performance: Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan all favor the Radeon by 50-87%. The RDNA 1.0 architecture's 7 nm process delivers higher clocks, greater bandwidth per bus bit, and FP16 support, making it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks that leverage these capabilities. The 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate also suggests superior fill-rate-bound rendering. For users running macOS applications that use Metal, or cross-platform Vulkan workloads, the Radeon Pro 5700 is the only rational pick based on the data.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 wins in memory capacity and aggregate consistency. Its 12 GB frame buffer is 50% larger than the Radeon's 8 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed 8 GB in a single working set. The Quadro also posts a higher average benchmark score of 19,030 versus 18,189, and its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19,036 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19,049, sit within 0.3% of its average, indicating the Kepler card still competes with much newer mainstream GPUs in aggregate terms. The higher TMU count (240 vs 144) and texture rate (216.5 GTexel/s vs 194.4 GTexel/s) suggest advantages in texture-heavy workloads that are not captured by the Geekbench tests.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: pick the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 for raw performance. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks by margins ranging from 50.5% to 86.8%, offers more than twice the FP32 throughput per watt (6.221 TFLOPS at 130 W versus 5.196 TFLOPS at 225 W), and supports modern APIs including Vulkan 1.4 and FP16 compute. The Radeon Pro 5700 is also the only option here for systems that require PCIe 4.0 connectivity or have no space for a dual-slot card with external power connectors.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 only if 12 GB of VRAM is an absolute requirement and the workload cannot fit within 8 GB. The Quadro's higher average benchmark score, 19,030 versus 18,189, and its proximity to rivals like the RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, +0.4%) indicate it remains a capable aggregate performer. However, in every direct comparison where both cards run the same test, the Radeon Pro 5700 dominates. The Quadro's 6 Gbps memory and 28 nm process are generational liabilities that no amount of VRAM can fully offset. For professional users who need maximum compute performance today, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is the verdict-driven choice.