GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a striking disparity between these two GPUs, with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 winning all three head-to-head comparisons. The most dramatic result comes from the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 6600 scores 88,398 against the Quadro K6000’s 7,932, a 1,014.4% difference. This is not a marginal lead; the Radeon outperforms the Quadro by more than an order of magnitude in this particular API workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similarly lopsided result, with the RX 6600 posting 67,623 versus 25,409 for the K6000, a 166.1% advantage. The smallest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6600 scores 28,850 compared to the Quadro’s 23,749, still a 21.5% lead, but far more competitive than the other two tests. This suggests the older Kepler architecture retains some compute capability in OpenCL contexts, even if it cannot match the newer RDNA 2 implementation.

Looking at the aggregate data, the two cards sit nearly identical in overall average benchmark score: the RX 6600 averages 19,036, while the Quadro K6000 averages 19,030, a delta of 0%. Both cards occupy the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, and their nearest rivals list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, -0.1% from the RX 6600), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089, -0.3%), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, 0.4%). This clustering indicates that while the RX 6600 dominates the specific head-to-head tests available, the broader benchmark suite places both cards in the same performance tier.

The individual benchmark results for the RX 6600 show its strengths: a Passmark G3D score of 15,096, a Passmark GPU Compute score of 6,554, and a Geekbench Metal result of 88,398. The Quadro K6000, by contrast, only has three benchmark entries in the data, Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, all of which fall substantially behind the Radeon. The absence of DirectX or Passmark entries for the Quadro means the head-to-head comparison is limited to those three Geekbench tests, but the pattern is consistent: the RX 6600 wins every available matchup.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 averages 19,036, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030, a difference of 0%. Both cards share the same 63rd percentile ranking among all GPUs.

Q: How large is the RX 6600’s lead in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The RX 6600 scores 88,398 versus the K6000’s 7,932, representing a 1,014.4% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the Quadro K6000 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The data shows the RX 6600 winning all three head-to-head tests, with the Quadro K6000 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The RX 6600 delivers 8.928 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro K6000 delivers 5.196 TFLOPS, a substantial gap in raw compute throughput.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon RX 6600 and the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 are listed as end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural eras. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip based on Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process also at TSMC, with 7,080 million transistors spread across a much larger 561 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.6M per mm².

The RDNA 2.0 architecture brings modern features that Kepler lacks entirely. The RX 6600 includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro K6000 has none. The RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support also differs: the RX 6600 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

The clock speeds tell the story of architectural efficiency. The RX 6600 runs at a base clock of 1,626 MHz and boosts to 2,491 MHz, with a game clock of 2,044 MHz. The Quadro K6000 operates at a base clock of 797 MHz and boosts to 902 MHz, less than half the Radeon’s boost frequency. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, explains much of the performance gap in the head-to-head tests.

The RX 6600’s pixel rate is 159.4 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 279.0 GTexel/s, compared to 54.12 GPixel/s and 216.5 GTexel/s for the Quadro. The Radeon’s FP16 throughput of 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) has no equivalent on the Quadro, which lists no FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The RX 6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the Quadro K6000 has 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. This means the Quadro actually has more shading units and TMUs, but fewer ROPs, a configuration that reflects its older, compute-oriented design.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The RX 6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus and 288.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro’s larger memory pool and wider bus give it a bandwidth advantage, but the Radeon’s faster GDDR6 memory runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 1,502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

Power requirements show the Quadro as the more demanding card. The RX 6600 has a TDP of 132 W with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Quadro K6000 has a TDP of 225 W with two 6-pin connectors and a suggested PSU of 550 W. Both are dual-slot cards, but the RX 6600 is 190 mm long, while the Quadro extends to 267 mm.

Interface and display outputs also differ. The RX 6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and offers 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 2x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The release dates are far apart: the RX 6600 launched on 2021-10-12, while the Quadro K6000 launched on 2013-07-22.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 wins decisively in every available head-to-head benchmark. Its Geekbench Metal score of 88,398 dwarfs the Quadro’s 7,932, and its Vulkan result of 67,623 nearly triples the Quadro’s 25,409. Even in OpenCL, where the gap narrows, the RX 6600’s 28,850 still beats the Quadro’s 23,749. The Radeon’s modern RDNA 2.0 architecture, far higher clock speeds, and ray tracing support make it the clear choice for any workload that leverages current-generation APIs.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 does not win any benchmark in this dataset, but its specification sheet reveals areas where it could theoretically hold an advantage. Its 12 GB of memory with 288.4 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the RX 6600’s 8 GB and 224.0 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound workloads that require large datasets. Its 2,880 shading units and 240 TMUs are also substantially higher than the Radeon’s counts, even if the older architecture prevents those resources from translating into benchmark wins.

The broader benchmark context shows both cards clustered at the same performance level. The RX 6600’s average score of 19,036 and the Quadro’s 19,030 place them within 0% of each other, with rivals like the RTX 4050 Mobile, Tesla K20m, and RTX 2000 Ada Generation all within a percentage point. This suggests that in general-purpose compute, the two cards are far closer than the head-to-head results imply.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases: the AMD Radeon RX 6600. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, delivers over 70% more FP32 performance (8.928 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS), runs on a far more modern architecture with ray tracing support, and consumes less power at 132 W versus 225 W. Its 1,014.4% advantage in Geekbench Metal and 166.1% advantage in Vulkan make it the superior choice for any application that utilizes those APIs.

The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 should only be considered in scenarios where its specific strengths matter more than raw benchmark performance. Its 12 GB of memory and 384-bit bus provide 288.4 GB/s of bandwidth, 28.7% more than the RX 6600’s 224.0 GB/s. For workloads that require holding large memory footprints, such as certain professional visualization or compute tasks, that capacity could be decisive. Its higher shading unit and TMU counts might also appeal in theory, though the benchmark data does not show those translating into wins.

For buyers prioritizing modern API support, ray tracing, higher frame rates in current-generation games, or lower system power requirements, the RX 6600 is the only logical choice. For those with legacy professional workflows that specifically need the Quadro’s 12 GB memory pool and can tolerate its older Kepler architecture, the K6000 retains a niche. The overall average benchmark scores, 19,036 versus 19,030, suggest that in mixed workloads, the two cards perform nearly identically, but the head-to-head results leave no ambiguity about which card handles contemporary graphics tasks better.