AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB represent two distinct eras of GPU design, with the former built on a 7 nm process for gaming and the latter a 28 nm professional workstation card. Benchmark data shows the RX 6800 XT holds a commanding lead in the two shared tests, but the Quadro’s 24 GB memory capacity and professional lineage raise questions about workload suitability that raw scores alone do not answer.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT compare to the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB in OpenCL performance?

A: The RX 6800 XT scores 171,304 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro M6000 scores 40,098. This gives the AMD card a 327.2% advantage, making it more than four times faster in this compute-oriented test.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance, and by how much?

A: The RX 6800 XT wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 136,875 versus the Quadro’s 46,425, a 194.8% delta. The AMD card is nearly three times faster in this API.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each card?

A: The RX 6800 XT has an average benchmark score of 48,477 across all its tested workloads, while the Quadro M6000 averages 43,262. The RX 6800 XT sits at the 85th percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro is at the 83rd percentile.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 24 GB offer any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the Quadro has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, compared to the RX 6800 XT’s 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. However, the AMD card’s bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus the Quadro’s 317.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The RX 6800 XT’s Navi 21 chip packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a density of 51.5M / mm². The Quadro’s GM200 has 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, for a density of 13.3M / mm².

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6800 XT achieves 288.0 GPixel/s, while the Quadro M6000 manages 106.9 GPixel/s. This reflects the AMD card’s 128 ROPs versus the Quadro’s 96 ROPs.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT for any workload represented in the shared benchmarks. Its 327.2% lead in OpenCL and 194.8% lead in Vulkan are not marginal differences; they are generational leaps. The RX 6800 XT also holds a higher average benchmark score (48,477 vs. 43,262) and a better percentile ranking (85th vs. 83rd), indicating broader overall capability.

However, the Quadro M6000 24 GB is not without a rationale. Its 24 GB frame buffer exceeds the RX 6800 XT’s 16 GB, which matters for datasets that demand capacity over speed. The Quadro also carries a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD, positioning it as a professional tool, whereas the RX 6800 XT launched at 649 USD. For users whose primary metric is raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the RX 6800 XT is the clear choice. For those needing maximum memory size in a workstation context, the Quadro’s 24 GB is the only spec where it wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is brief but unambiguous, with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT winning both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800 XT scores 171,304 against the Quadro’s 40,098, a delta of 327.2%. This is not a close contest; the AMD card delivers over four times the compute throughput in this cross-platform API.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar story. The RX 6800 XT posts 136,875, while the Quadro M6000 manages 46,425, yielding a 194.8% difference. The AMD card nearly triples the NVIDIA card’s score. Given that Vulkan is a modern low-level API, this gap likely reflects the architectural gulf between RDNA 2.0 and Maxwell 2.0.

The win count stands at 2 for the RX 6800 XT and 0 for the Quadro. There are no benchmark tests where the Quadro outperforms the AMD card in this dataset. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the RX 6800 XT’s 48,477 average is 11.4% higher than the Quadro’s 43,262, even when including the AMD card’s additional DirectX and PassMark tests where the Quadro has no recorded results.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on nearly every core specification. The RX 6800 XT uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Quadro M6000 uses 28 nm. This explains the transistor count difference: 26,800 million for the AMD chip versus 8,000 million for the NVIDIA chip, despite the Quadro’s larger 601 mm² die versus 520 mm².

Clock speeds favor the RX 6800 XT with a base of 1825 MHz and boost of 2250 MHz, compared to the Quadro’s 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The AMD card also has a higher game clock of 2015 MHz, a feature the Quadro lacks. Memory clocks are similarly lopsided: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the RX 6800 XT versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

The RX 6800 XT has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, versus the Quadro’s 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The AMD card also features 72 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro does not have. Pixel rate is 288.0 GPixel/s for AMD and 106.9 GPixel/s for NVIDIA; texture rate is 648.0 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 20.74 TFLOPS for the RX 6800 XT and 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro, with the AMD card also offering FP16 at 41.47 TFLOPS (2:1) while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and interface specs also differ: the RX 6800 XT has a 300 W TDP with 2x 8-pin connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro has a 250 W TDP with 1x 8-pin and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 6800 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, and the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C for AMD, versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting their release dates. The RX 6800 XT is built on RDNA 2.0 and uses the Navi 21 chip, part of the Navi II (RX 6000) generation. The Quadro M6000 uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM200 chip, from the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The former was released on 2020-10-27, and the latter on 2016-03-04.

The process node difference is the most fundamental: 7 nm for AMD versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. This leads to the transistor density disparity of 51.5M / mm² versus 13.3M / mm². The RX 6800 XT’s RDNA 2.0 architecture natively supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The RX 6800 XT includes 72 ray tracing cores, a hardware feature entirely absent from the Maxwell-based Quadro. The AMD card also has no tensor cores, and neither does the Quadro, so both rely on traditional shader compute. The RX 6800 XT’s shading unit count of 4608 is 50% higher than the Quadro’s 3072, and its TMU count of 288 is 50% higher as well. The ROP count of 128 versus 96 gives the AMD card a 33% advantage in that metric.

Memory architecture also differs: the RX 6800 XT uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the Quadro uses 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus. Despite the wider bus and larger capacity, the Quadro’s bandwidth is lower at 317.4 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, because GDDR5 operates at a much lower effective speed than GDDR6.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800 XT wins in every benchmark category where both cards have data. It dominates OpenCL with a 327.2% lead and Vulkan with a 194.8% lead. Its FP32 compute of 20.74 TFLOPS is triple the Quadro’s 6.844 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 648.0 GTexel/s is more than triple. For any workload that stresses raw arithmetic throughput, shader execution, or modern API features like ray tracing, the RX 6800 XT is unequivocally superior.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB wins in memory capacity, offering 24 GB versus 16 GB. This is its sole specification advantage. For applications that require holding very large datasets in VRAM — such as certain scientific simulations or large-scale visualization tasks — the extra 8 GB could be the deciding factor, even if the memory itself is slower. The Quadro also has a lower TDP of 250 W versus 300 W, which may ease power delivery requirements, though it still suggests a 600 W PSU versus 700 W for the AMD card.

Production status is end-of-life for both, but their successors differ: the RX 6800 XT’s successor is Navi III, and the Quadro’s is Quadro Pascal. The RX 6800 XT’s predecessor is Navi, while the Quadro’s is Quadro Kepler. In terms of interface, the RX 6800 XT’s PCIe 4.0 x16 offers double the bandwidth of the Quadro’s PCIe 3.0 x16, which matters for data transfer in compute workloads.

The verdict is clear: for any benchmark in this dataset, the RX 6800 XT wins. The Quadro’s only argument is its 24 GB frame buffer, which is a capacity advantage, not a performance one. Users prioritizing speed, modern features, and compute efficiency should choose the RX 6800 XT. Users whose primary need is maximum VRAM size in a dual-slot, 250 W package may consider the Quadro, but they will sacrifice significant performance in every measured metric.