AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and the AMD Radeon RX 480. In both tests, the Quadro M6000 comes out ahead, but the margins are not uniform. The larger gap appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 against the RX 480's 37,998. That is a 4.4% advantage for NVIDIA. The Vulkan test is closer: the Quadro M6000 records 46,913, while the RX 480 posts 45,968, a 2.1% difference. Neither benchmark shows a single win for the AMD card in this head-to-head set.

Interpreting these results requires context from the broader database. The Quadro M6000's average benchmark score is 43,301, which places it at the 84th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 480's average is 33,997, sitting at the 78th percentile. The gap in average scores is roughly 27% in favor of the Quadro, yet the head-to-head tests show only a 4.4% and 2.1% edge. This discrepancy suggests that the two synthetic tests used for direct comparison favor the NVIDIA architecture more than the overall average would imply. The RX 480 has additional benchmark entries in the database, including a Geekbench Metal score of 51,057 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, but these have no direct counterpart for the Quadro M6000, so they do not factor into the head-to-head totals.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning of both cards. The Quadro M6000 sits within 0.1% of the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262), and 0.2% behind the RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223). The RTX 4090 Mobile is 0.8% ahead with 43,667. For the RX 480, the closest competitor is the RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154, which is 0.5% ahead, while the Radeon RX 7700S trails by 0.4% with 33,849. These figures show that the Quadro M6000 competes in a performance tier roughly 27% higher than the RX 480, despite the relatively modest deltas in the two shared tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: 28 nm versus 14 nm. This shows up in transistor density. The NVIDIA chip packs 8,000 million transistors into a 601 mm² die, giving a density of 13.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD chip uses 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, achieving 24.6 million per square millimeter. The RX 480 is the denser design, but the Quadro M6000 has more raw transistors and a much larger physical footprint.

Compute resources also differ. The Quadro M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. The ROP disparity is particularly striking: 96 versus 32, a 3x difference. This explains the pixel rate gap. The Quadro M6000 delivers 106.9 GPixel/s, while the RX 480 manages 40.51 GPixel/s. Texture rates are closer: 213.9 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 182.3 GTexel/s for AMD. Floating point performance follows a similar pattern. The Quadro M6000 reaches 6.844 TFLOPS in FP32, while the RX 480 achieves 5.834 TFLOPS. Notably, the RX 480 also lists FP16 at 5.834 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro M6000 does not report an FP16 figure.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s. Clock speeds tell a different story: the RX 480 runs at a base of 1120 MHz and boosts to 1266 MHz, while the Quadro M6000 has a lower base of 988 MHz and a boost of 1114 MHz. The memory clocks also favor AMD on raw frequency: 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). Despite higher clocks, the RX 480's narrower bus gives it less total bandwidth.

API support is broadly similar, with both cards supporting DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. However, the DirectX version differs: the Quadro M6000 supports 12 (12_1), while the RX 480 supports 12 (12_0). Vulkan also differs, with NVIDIA at 1.4 and AMD at 1.3. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Quadro M6000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation, with its predecessor listed as Quadro Kepler and successor as Quadro Pascal. The RX 480 belongs to the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, with Pirate Islands as predecessor and Polaris as successor.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data gives the Quadro M6000 two wins out of two tests. The 4.4% lead in OpenCL is the more decisive victory. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth, areas where the Quadro M6000 holds clear advantages: 6.844 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS, and 317.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The Vulkan test is tighter at 2.1%, suggesting that the RX 480's higher clock speeds (1266 MHz boost versus 1114 MHz) partially offset the Quadro's larger resource pool.

The RX 480 does not win any shared benchmark, but the database shows it has strengths in other areas. Its Geekbench Metal score of 51,057 is notable, though there is no direct Quadro comparison for that API. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966 also stands alone. The RX 480's FP16 capability at 5.834 TFLOPS matches its FP32 output, which could benefit workloads that use half-precision, though the Quadro M6000 does not report an FP16 number to compare against.

Use-case split from the data: the Quadro M6000 is the pick for OpenCL-heavy tasks and any workload that needs high pixel throughput (106.9 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s) or large memory capacity (12 GB versus 8 GB). The RX 480, despite losing both head-to-head tests, offers a smaller physical footprint (240 mm length versus 267 mm, 95 mm height versus 111 mm, 35 mm width versus no width listed for NVIDIA), a lower power draw (150 W versus 250 W), and a 6-pin power connector instead of an 8-pin. These physical attributes do not show up in benchmark scores, but they matter for system integration.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

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

| Chip | GM200 | Ellesmere |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 192 | 144 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.844 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not reported | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 240 mm (9.4 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 95 mm (3.7 inches) |

| Width | Not reported | 35 mm (1.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2016-06-28 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The launch MSRP for the RX 480 is 229 USD. The Quadro M6000 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 averages 43,301 across its recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33,997. That places the Quadro at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 78th percentile for the RX 480.

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

A: The Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RX 480 scores 37,998. The delta is 4.4% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: Does the RX 480 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Quadro M6000 wins both. The Vulkan margin is 2.1% (46,913 versus 45,968).

Q: What explains the RX 480's higher clock speeds?

A: The RX 480 runs at a base clock of 1120 MHz and a boost of 1266 MHz, compared to 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost for the Quadro M6000. The AMD card also has a faster memory clock at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). However, the Quadro's wider 384-bit memory bus gives it higher total bandwidth at 317.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The RX 480 has newer display connectivity: 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro M6000 uses 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with a single 8-pin connector. The RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W, a 450 W suggested PSU, and a single 6-pin connector.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Quadro M6000 leads in every shared test, with a 4.4% margin in OpenCL and a 2.1% margin in Vulkan. Its average score of 43,301 versus 33,997 for the RX 480 shows a substantial overall gap of roughly 27%. The Quadro also holds decisive advantages in pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s), memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s), and FP32 compute (6.844 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS). Anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, high-resolution rasterization, or memory-heavy workloads should choose the Quadro M6000 based on these figures.

The RX 480 appeals on different grounds. It is a smaller card: 240 mm long versus 267 mm, 95 mm high versus 111 mm, with a measured width of 35 mm. It draws 150 W instead of 250 W, uses a 6-pin connector instead of an 8-pin, and requires a 450 W PSU rather than 600 W. It also offers newer display outputs with DisplayPort 1.4a and HDMI 2.0b, plus FP16 support at 5.834 TFLOPS that the Quadro does not report. The RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile, which is lower than the Quadro's 84th, but its nearest rivals (RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154, RX 7700S at 33,849) show it is competitive within its own tier.

For systems where space, power, or connector compatibility are the binding constraints, the RX 480 is the more flexible option. For workloads that stress OpenCL performance, pixel throughput, or memory capacity, the Quadro M6000 is the stronger choice. The data does not show a single scenario where the RX 480 outperforms the Quadro in a shared benchmark. The decision rests on whether the Quadro's performance lead justifies its larger physical footprint and higher power draw, or whether the RX 480's efficiency and newer display outputs matter more for the intended use.