AMD Radeon RX 6800M vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and AMD Radeon RX 6800M are both end-of-life products, but they represent very different moments in GPU design. The Quadro M5000 is a professional desktop card from 2015 built on Maxwell 2.0, while the RX 6800M is a mobile part from 2021 using RDNA 2.0. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison is more nuanced than a simple score difference. The two available head-to-head benchmarks cover OpenCL and Vulkan, and the AMD part wins both by a wide margin. However, the average benchmark scores and percentile rankings tell a story of two GPUs that occupy similar overall tiers despite their architectural differences.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800M wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 against the Quadro M5000’s 29,481, a delta of -66.4% from the AMD part’s perspective meaning the NVIDIA card is 66.4% slower. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is nearly identical: the RX 6800M posts 94,766 versus 32,931 for the Quadro, with a delta of -65.3%. There are no benchmark categories where the Quadro M5000 takes a win.

The RX 6800M also has a broader benchmark portfolio. The data includes 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench Metal, multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9 through 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute), and it scores 113,721 in Metal, 13,261 in Passmark G3D, and 5,032 in Passmark GPU compute. The Quadro M5000 only has two recorded benchmarks — the OpenCL and Vulkan tests — so its strengths outside those APIs cannot be quantified from this data. This means the RX 6800M demonstrates versatility across compute, graphics, and API-specific workloads, while the Quadro’s data is limited to two general-purpose compute tests.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The Quadro M5000 has an average score of 31,206, while the RX 6800M averages 28,874. This puts the Quadro M5000 at the 76th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 74th percentile for the RX 6800M. That is a narrow gap in overall standing, suggesting that the Quadro’s two scores are high relative to its peers, even if it loses head-to-head. The RX 6800M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570 (delta 0.4%) and the AMD Radeon RX 470 (delta -0.4%), while the Quadro M5000 sits near the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q (delta 0%) and the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (delta 0.4%). Neither GPU is a top-tier performer by modern standards, but the RX 6800M clearly dominates in the two shared tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The RX 6800M uses the Navi 22 chip on RDNA 2.0, also from TSMC but on a 7 nm process. It packs 17,200 million transistors into a smaller 335 mm² die, achieving 51.3 million transistors per mm² — nearly four times the density.

Clock speeds differ enormously. The Quadro M5000 has a base clock of 861 MHz and a boost of 1038 MHz. The RX 6800M runs at a base of 2116 MHz, a boost of 2390 MHz, and a game clock of 2300 MHz. That is over double the base frequency and more than double the boost. Memory also diverges: the Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800M has higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus because of faster memory at 16 Gbps effective versus 6.6 Gbps effective on the Quadro.

Compute resources are also lopsided. The Quadro M5000 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6800M has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs — matching ROP count but adding 512 shaders and 32 TMUs. The RX 6800M also includes 40 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The RX 6800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and has a 2:1 FP16 rate at 24.47 TFLOPS, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and has no FP16 data. FP32 performance is 4.252 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 12.24 TFLOPS for the RX 6800M.

Physical specifications reflect their different use cases. The Quadro M5000 is a dual-slot card, 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The RX 6800M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for laptops, with no slots, no power connectors, and no listed dimensions. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the RX 6800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RX 6800M’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent” — meaning they vary by laptop implementation.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon RX 6800M for raw performance. In both shared benchmarks, it more than doubles the Quadro M5000’s score. The RX 6800M also offers modern features like ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 7 nm process with much higher clock speeds. For any workload involving OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the RX 6800M is the superior choice based on the numbers.

The Quadro M5000’s case rests on its professional positioning and its average benchmark score. Its 31,206 average is higher than the RX 6800M’s 28,874, and its 76th percentile ranking beats the AMD part’s 74th. However, this is based on only two benchmarks, both of which it loses by roughly two-thirds. The Quadro M5000 has more display outputs (DVI plus four DisplayPort 1.2) which could matter for multi-monitor professional setups, but the data does not include any workstation-specific tests.

For mobile users, the RX 6800M is the only option here since it is an IGP for laptops. For desktop workstation builders, the Quadro M5000 offers a dual-slot form factor with a 6-pin connector and a 150 W TDP, but its 2015-era architecture and 28 nm process are severely outpaced. If the choice is purely about benchmark performance, the RX 6800M wins every measured category. If the choice is about professional display connectivity and a higher average benchmark standing, the Quadro M5000 has a narrow edge in that single metric. The real answer depends on whether the workload matches the two available benchmarks or requires the broader API support of the RX 6800M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 94,766 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 32,931 for the NVIDIA Quadro M5000, making the AMD part 65.3% faster in that test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has an average benchmark score of 31,206, while the AMD Radeon RX 6800M averages 28,874. The Quadro M5000 ranks at the 76th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 74th percentile for the RX 6800M.

Q: What are the main memory differences between the two?

A: The Quadro M5000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 6800M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon RX 6800M includes 40 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 has no ray tracing cores listed in the data.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro M5000 has a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm² on a 28 nm process, while the RX 6800M achieves 51.3 million per mm² on a 7 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M boosts to 2390 MHz, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 boosts to 1038 MHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head benchmarks both go to the AMD Radeon RX 6800M by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 versus 29,481 for the Quadro M5000. That is a delta of -66.4%, meaning the Quadro performs at roughly one-third the level of the AMD part. The absolute difference of 58,140 points is larger than the Quadro’s entire score. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6800M scores 94,766 against 32,931 for the Quadro, a delta of -65.3%. The absolute gap of 61,835 points again exceeds the Quadro’s total score.

These results indicate that the RX 6800M is not merely faster — it is in a different performance class for compute workloads. The Quadro M5000’s FP32 throughput of 4.252 TFLOPS is less than half the RX 6800M’s 12.24 TFLOPS, which explains a large part of the gap. The RX 6800M also has a texture rate of 382.4 GTexel/s versus 132.9 GTexel/s for the Quadro, and a pixel rate of 153.0 GPixel/s versus 66.43 GPixel/s. Every measurable compute and rendering throughput metric in the data favors the AMD part.

The RX 6800M’s additional benchmarks provide context for its head-to-head wins. It scores 113,721 in Geekbench Metal, 13,261 in Passmark G3D, and 5,032 in Passmark GPU compute. Its Passmark DirectX scores range from 65 (DirectX 12) to 147 (DirectX 9), with a G2D score of 538. These numbers suggest consistent performance across different APIs and workload types, though no direct Quadro comparison is available for those tests. The Quadro M5000 has no such data, so its performance outside OpenCL and Vulkan remains unquantified.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. Process node: 28 nm for the Quadro M5000 versus 7 nm for the RX 6800M. Transistor count: 5,200 million versus 17,200 million. Die size: 398 mm² versus 335 mm². Transistor density: 13.1M / mm² versus 51.3M / mm². Base clock: 861 MHz versus 2116 MHz. Boost clock: 1038 MHz versus 2390 MHz. The RX 6800M also lists a game clock of 2300 MHz, which the Quadro lacks.

Memory specifications diverge completely. The Quadro M5000 uses 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 211.6 GB/s bandwidth and memory clock of 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). The RX 6800M uses 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth and memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Shading units: 2048 versus 2560. TMUs: 128 versus 160. ROPs are equal at 64. The RX 6800M has 40 ray tracing cores; the Quadro has none. FP32: 4.252 TFLOPS versus 12.24 TFLOPS. FP16: the RX 6800M has 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1); the Quadro has no FP16 data.

Physical and platform specifications also differ. TDP: 150 W for the Quadro versus 145 W for the RX 6800M. Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 450 W for the Quadro, none listed for the RX 6800M. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus “Portable Device Dependent.” Dimensions: the Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall; the RX 6800M has no listed dimensions. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL is 4.6 for both, and Vulkan is 1.4 for both. Release dates bracket the generation gap: June 2015 for the Quadro, May 2021 for the RX 6800M.