AMD Radeon Pro Duo vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000. The Quadro M6000 posted a score of 39,688, while the AMD Radeon Pro Duo managed 35,860. That translates to a 10.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card in this particular workload.

This is a meaningful margin in compute tasks. A 10.7% lead puts the Quadro M6000 in a different performance tier for OpenCL acceleration, which is often a proxy for real-world GPU compute performance in applications that leverage this API. The Radeon Pro Duo, despite having a higher raw FP32 rating, trails in this specific benchmark.

The database also places both cards in context relative to their peers. The Quadro M6000 sits at the 84th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 43,301. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, a 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262, a 0.1% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223, a 0.2% difference). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile by 0.8%, a notable result given that the mobile flagship is a much newer product.

The Radeon Pro Duo, by contrast, achieves the 80th percentile overall, with an average score of 35,860. Its closest competitors tell a different story: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scores 35,520, which is 1% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile scores 35,435, which is 1.2% behind. On the other side, the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) beats the Pro Duo by 1.2%, and the AMD Radeon RX 5300M (36,529) leads by 1.8%. The Pro Duo is thus clustered in a tight band of mid-range performers, whereas the Quadro M6000 holds its own against much more recent hardware.

The head-to-head data records one win for the Quadro M6000 and zero for the Radeon Pro Duo. There are no other shared benchmark entries in the database, so the comparison rests on this single OpenCL result, supplemented by their respective nearest-rival data.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, specifically the GM200 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors onto a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro Duo uses AMD's GCN 3.0 architecture, with the Capsaicin chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 8,900 million transistors on a slightly smaller 596 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 14.9 million per square millimeter.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 across a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Duo uses 4 GB of HBM on a vastly wider 4096-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s. This is a significant bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, more than 60% higher than the NVIDIA solution, even though the capacity is three times smaller.

The compute resources are also structured differently. The Quadro M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon Pro Duo counters with 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and only 64 ROPs. These numbers lead to different theoretical limits: the M6000 reaches 6.844 TFLOPS FP32, while the Pro Duo peaks at 8.192 TFLOPS FP32. The Pro Duo also advertises FP16 at 8.192 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the M6000 has no listed FP16 capability. Pixel fill rate favors NVIDIA at 106.9 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors AMD at 256.0 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds tell part of the story. The Quadro M6000 runs at a 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost, with memory at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). The Radeon Pro Duo has no listed base or boost clocks, and its memory runs at 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective). The absence of core clock data for the Pro Duo makes direct frequency comparison impossible, but the memory clock difference is stark.

Power and connectivity also differ. The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The Radeon Pro Duo demands 350 W, needs three 8-pin connectors, and recommends a 750 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards. Display outputs vary: the M6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Pro Duo provides 1x HDMI 1.4a and 3x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support reveals generational differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the M6000 reaches feature level 12_1 while the Pro Duo stops at 12_0. OpenGL is identical at 4.6. Vulkan differs: the M6000 supports version 1.4, the Pro Duo only 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card is also larger in one dimension, measuring 267 mm in length versus 277 mm for the AMD card, though both are 111 mm tall.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M6000 wins decisively in the only shared benchmark, OpenCL, with a 10.7% edge. This suggests it is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on OpenCL, such as certain rendering, simulation, or data-processing tasks. Its higher pixel fill rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s) also indicates an advantage in rasterization-heavy scenarios, where fill-rate limits can constrain performance. The 12 GB memory capacity is another point in its favor for large datasets that exceed the Pro Duo's 4 GB limit, even though the Pro Duo has much higher bandwidth.

The Radeon Pro Duo wins on raw compute throughput, at least on paper. Its 8.192 TFLOPS FP32 exceeds the M6000's 6.844 TFLOPS, and it offers FP16 at the same rate, which the M6000 lacks entirely. For workloads that leverage FP16, the Pro Duo has a clear theoretical edge. Its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is substantially higher, which can benefit memory-bound kernels that fit within the 4 GB capacity. The higher texture rate (256.0 GTexel/s) also favors the AMD card in texture-heavy workloads.

In practice, the benchmark data shows the M6000's advantages translating into real-world OpenCL performance, while the Pro Duo's theoretical strengths do not materialize in the recorded test. The Pro Duo's nearest-rival data places it in a lower overall percentile (80th versus 84th), reinforcing the idea that its specifications do not automatically yield higher application performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000, with an average score of 43,301, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro Duo's 35,860.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M6000 in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 versus 35,860 for the Pro Duo, a 10.7% difference.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Duo have any specification advantage over the Quadro M6000?

A: Yes, it has higher FP32 throughput (8.192 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS), higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s), and more shading units (4,096 versus 3,072).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon Pro Duo has 4 GB of HBM.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The Quadro M6000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro Duo supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the TDP requirements?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro Duo has a 350 W TDP with a 750 W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | AMD Radeon Pro Duo |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | GM200 | Capsaicin |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 8,900 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 596 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 14.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective | 500 MHz, 1000 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 64.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 256.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.844 TFLOPS | 8.192 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 350 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 3x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 750 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 277 mm (10.9 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2016-04-25 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 1,499 USD |