AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6500M and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 are two very different mobile graphics solutions, separated by five years of architectural evolution. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the AMD card wins in modern compute APIs like Vulkan and OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro dominates the entire Passmark suite, particularly in legacy DirectX titles and 2D workloads. The Quadro P4000’s overall average benchmark score of 9665 is actually lower than the RX 6500M’s 10362, yet the NVIDIA card wins 7 of 9 head-to-head tests, revealing that the AMD’s average is buoyed by two lopsided compute wins rather than sustained gaming or workstation performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M posts an average benchmark score of 10362, which is 6.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P4000’s 9665. However, the Quadro P4000 wins 7 out of 9 individual head-to-head tests, indicating the AMD average is skewed by two strong compute results.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6500M scores 43837 in Geekbench Vulkan, defeating the Quadro P4000’s 41786 by 4.9%. This is one of only two head-to-head wins for the AMD card, the other being a 6.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (38586 vs 36212).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark DirectX 9, where the Quadro P4000 scores 181 against the RX 6500M’s 92. That is a 49.2% advantage for the NVIDIA card, the most decisive result in the entire benchmark set.

Q: Which GPU has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 offers 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR5 memory. The RX 6500M provides 144.0 GB/s via a 64-bit bus and 4 GB of GDDR6, a substantial 99.3 GB/s deficit.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 have a production status of "End-of-life." The Quadro P4000 was succeeded by the Quadro Volta generation, while the RX 6500M has no listed successor.

Q: How do the cards compare in transistor density?

A: The RX 6500M packs 50.5 million transistors per mm² on a 6 nm process, while the Quadro P4000 has a density of 22.9M / mm² on a 16 nm process. The AMD chip is over twice as dense, despite having fewer total transistors (5,400 million vs 7,200 million).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M’s wins are concentrated in modern, low-level compute interfaces. Its 6.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 4.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan suggest that RDNA 2.0’s architecture is better optimized for current-generation API workloads. For users running Vulkan-based games or OpenCL compute tasks, the AMD card holds a measurable edge. However, this is a narrow victory zone; these are the only two tests where the AMD card comes out ahead.

The Quadro P4000 is the dominant force across the Passmark suite. It wins Passmark DirectX 10 by 21.2%, DirectX 11 by 18.6%, DirectX 12 by 15%, and DirectX 9 by a massive 49.2%. Its 2D performance is also far superior, with a Passmark G2D score of 786 versus 385, a 51% margin. The Quadro’s 34.3% lead in Passmark G3D (11466 vs 7531) and 45.7% lead in GPU compute (4913 vs 2669) confirm that it is the stronger card for traditional rasterization, CAD-style workloads, and general-purpose compute that relies on older DirectX paths.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by process generations. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, featuring the Navi 24 chip with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is built on the Pascal architecture using a 16 nm TSMC process, with the GP104 chip containing 7,200 million transistors across a much larger 314 mm² die.

The AMD card includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro P4000. The RX 6500M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro P4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the AMD card’s FP16 performance is 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1 rate) versus the Quadro’s paltry 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 rate), a 100-fold difference in half-precision throughput. The RX 6500M’s FP32 output is 4.915 TFLOPS, slightly lower than the Quadro’s 5.304 TFLOPS, yet the AMD card achieves this with 1024 shading units compared to the Quadro’s 1792.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds reveal contrasting strategies. The RX 6500M runs at a 2000 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost, while the Quadro P4000 operates at 1202 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost — the AMD card is 66% faster at base clock. Memory configurations diverge sharply: the RX 6500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, whereas the Quadro P4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. This explains the bandwidth gap (144.0 vs 243.3 GB/s).

Power and physical characteristics differ substantially. The RX 6500M has a 50 W TDP and is listed as "IGP" slot width with no power connectors, making it suitable for thin-and-light designs. The Quadro P4000 draws 105 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and occupies a single-slot form factor measuring 241 mm in length. The Quadro P4000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 6500M’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The Quadro also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6500M is limited to PCIe 4.0 x4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The compute results are the RX 6500M’s crowning achievement. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 38586 against 36212, a 6.6% advantage. The Vulkan test shows a closer 4.9% margin, with the RX 6500M scoring 43837 versus the Quadro’s 41786. These wins demonstrate that RDNA 2.0’s modern instruction set and higher clocks can overcome the Quadro’s larger memory bus and higher shading unit count in certain API contexts.

Everywhere else, the Quadro P4000 asserts its authority. The Passmark DirectX 9 test is the most lopsided: the Quadro scores 181, the RX 6500M just 92, a 49.2% deficit for AMD. DirectX 10 shows a 21.2% gap (66 vs 52), DirectX 11 an 18.6% gap (86 vs 70), and DirectX 12 a 15% gap (40 vs 34). The 2D test is also decisive: 786 vs 385, a 51% advantage for NVIDIA. In Passmark G3D, the Quadro’s 11466 crushes the RX 6500M’s 7531, and in GPU compute the Quadro’s 4913 doubles the AMD’s 2669 (45.7% gap).

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon RX 6500M if your priority is modern API compute performance in an ultra-low-power package. The data shows it wins Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, and its 6 nm process delivers those results at just 50 W TDP with no external power connectors. It is also the only card here with ray tracing support and DirectX 12 Ultimate compatibility, making it the forward-looking choice for developers targeting next-generation graphics features.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 if you need broad compatibility and raw throughput across legacy and current DirectX workloads. The benchmark evidence is overwhelming: it wins 7 of 9 comparisons, with leads ranging from 15% (DirectX 12) to 51% (G2D). Its 8 GB VRAM, 256-bit bus, and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth provide nearly double the memory bandwidth of the RX 6500M. The Quadro P4000 also offers professional display outputs and a single-slot form factor, making it suitable for workstation builds where reliability and multi-display support matter more than peak compute in modern APIs.

The final verdict is nuanced. The RX 6500M has the higher average benchmark score (10362 vs 9665) and wins the two most modern tests, but the Quadro P4000’s dominance in the other seven benchmarks indicates it is the more versatile and consistently faster card for the majority of real-world tasks. The Quadro P4000 was launched with an MSRP of 815 USD, reflecting its professional positioning, and the data justifies that tier of performance in everything except next-gen compute APIs.