AMD Radeon RX 6600 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 leads with an average benchmark score of 21629, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600 trails at 19036. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking, sitting at 67 versus the RX 6600's 63.

Q: In which workload does the Quadro RTX 5000 dominate the most?

A: The largest single-win margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro scores 78999 against the RX 6600's 28850, a massive 173.8% advantage. This indicates a substantial lead in general-purpose compute tasks.

Q: Are there any tests where the RX 6600 wins?

A: Yes, the RX 6600 wins in four tests: Passmark DirectX 11 (152 vs 140, a 7.9% lead), Passmark DirectX 9 (197 vs 195, a 1% edge), Passmark G2D (889 vs 709, a 20.2% advantage), and Passmark GPU Compute (6554 vs 6525, a 0.4% margin).

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has double the capacity and double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient according to specifications?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 has a 132 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 300 W, compared to the Quadro RTX 5000's 230 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU. The RX 6600 consumes significantly less power and requires a smaller power supply.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture (TU104 chip) built on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die. The RX 6600 uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture (Navi 23) on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. The RX 6600 has a much higher transistor density at 46.7M per mm² versus 25.0M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and AMD Radeon RX 6600 represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective generations. The Quadro is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture using the TU104 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 12 nm process. It packs 13,600 million transistors into a large 545 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The RX 6600, by contrast, uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip on a more advanced 7 nm process. It contains 11,060 million transistors on a much smaller 237 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 46.7M per mm².

The compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro RTX 5000 features 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, reflecting its workstation-oriented Turing design with dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware. The RX 6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 28 RT cores but no tensor cores. The Quadro's raw shader count is nearly double that of the RX 6600, though the RX 6600 compensates with much higher clock speeds.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Quadro runs at a 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost, while the RX 6600 starts at 1626 MHz base, boosts to 2491 MHz, and has a game clock of 2044 MHz. The RX 6600's boost clock is substantially higher, which helps close the gap in shader throughput despite fewer cores. The FP32 compute figures reflect this: the Quadro delivers 11.15 TFLOPS, while the RX 6600 delivers 8.928 TFLOPS. The Quadro also leads in texture rate at 348.5 GTexel/s versus 279.0 GTexel/s, but the RX 6600 leads in pixel rate at 159.4 GPixel/s versus 116.2 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Quadro offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use the same 1750 MHz memory clock with 14 Gbps effective speed, but the Quadro's wider bus gives it twice the bandwidth. The Quadro also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs differ as well. The Quadro provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C, while the RX 6600 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro is physically larger at 267 mm in length versus 190 mm for the RX 6600, and both are dual-slot cards. The Quadro requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, while the RX 6600 needs only a single 8-pin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows the Quadro RTX 5000 winning 5 of 9 tests, but the margins tell a more nuanced story. The most lopsided result is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro scores 78999 against 28850 for the RX 6600, a 173.8% advantage. This is a decisive win for the Quadro in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro again leads with 92309 versus 67623, a 36.5% margin.

The DirectX legacy tests also favor the Quadro. In Passmark DirectX 10, the Quadro scores 113 against 95, an 18.9% lead. In Passmark DirectX 12, the Quadro wins 59 to 51, a 15.7% margin. The Passmark G3D test is close, with the Quadro at 15616 and the RX 6600 at 15096, a 3.4% edge for the Quadro.

The RX 6600 claims its wins in four categories. The most significant is Passmark G2D, where it scores 889 versus 709, a 20.2% advantage in 2D graphics performance. In Passmark DirectX 11, the RX 6600 wins 152 to 140, a 7.9% lead. The other two wins are narrow: Passmark DirectX 9 at 197 versus 195 (1% edge) and Passmark GPU Compute at 6554 versus 6525 (0.4% edge). The GPU Compute margin is effectively negligible, as the RX 6600's advantage is less than half a percent.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture. The Quadro's average of 21629 places it in the 67th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6600's 19036 average puts it in the 63rd percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB at 21856 (1% higher) and the RTX A4000 Mobile at 21379 (1.2% lower). The RX 6600's nearest rivals are the Quadro K6000 at 19030 (essentially tied) and the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile at 19049 (0.1% higher).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification category. The process node is a key divider: the Quadro uses 12 nm, while the RX 6600 uses 7 nm. Die size is 545 mm² for the Quadro versus 237 mm² for the RX 6600. Transistor count is 13,600 million versus 11,060 million, and transistor density is 25.0M per mm² versus 46.7M per mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Quadro has a 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost. The RX 6600 has a 1626 MHz base, a 2491 MHz boost, and a 2044 MHz game clock. Memory clocks are identical at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Quadro has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 3072 for the Quadro versus 1792 for the RX 6600. TMUs are 192 versus 112, while ROPs are identical at 64. RT cores are 48 versus 28, and tensor cores are 384 for the Quadro while the RX 6600 has none.

Performance rates differ by metric. The Quadro delivers 116.2 GPixel/s pixel rate and 348.5 GTexel/s texture rate. The RX 6600 delivers 159.4 GPixel/s and 279.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 11.15 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 8.928 TFLOPS for the RX 6600. FP16 is 22.30 TFLOPS versus 17.86 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Quadro has a 230 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU. The RX 6600 has a 132 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro requires 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the RX 6600 requires only 1x 8-pin. The Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the RX 6600 is 190 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. Both are dual-slot cards. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 6600. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C for the Quadro, versus 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 6600.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the clear choice for compute-heavy applications. Its 173.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the largest margin in any test, indicating a commanding advantage in general-purpose compute workloads. The 36.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan further reinforces its strength in GPU-accelerated rendering and compute. The Quadro also wins the DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 legacy tests with 18.9% and 15.7% margins respectively. Its 16 GB memory capacity and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large datasets and memory-intensive workloads. The inclusion of 384 tensor cores gives it dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the RX 6600 lacks entirely. The Quadro's 67th percentile ranking and higher average score of 21629 also position it as the more powerful overall GPU.

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 wins where efficiency and 2D performance matter. Its 20.2% lead in Passmark G2D shows a significant advantage in 2D graphics tasks. The DirectX 11 win at 7.9% and the DirectX 9 win at 1% indicate that the RX 6600 holds its own in older DirectX workloads. The GPU Compute result at 0.4% is essentially a tie, showing that the RX 6600 can match the Quadro in at least one compute metric. The RX 6600's much lower TDP of 132 W versus 230 W, combined with a 300 W suggested PSU versus 550 W, makes it the more practical option for compact or power-sensitive builds. Its 7 nm process and smaller 237 mm² die also represent a more modern manufacturing approach. The 2491 MHz boost clock is substantially higher than the Quadro's 1815 MHz, which helps the RX 6600 stay competitive in clock-sensitive workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload priorities. For users who need maximum compute throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior option. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 78999 is nearly triple the RX 6600's 28850, and its Vulkan score of 92309 is 36.5% higher. The Quadro also wins the DirectX 10, DirectX 12, and G3D tests, giving it wins in 5 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks. Its higher average score of 21629 and 67th percentile ranking reinforce its overall performance advantage. The 16 GB memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom for large workloads, and the 384 tensor cores add AI capabilities the RX 6600 cannot match. The launch MSRP of 2,299 USD reflects its workstation positioning.

For users prioritizing efficiency and 2D performance, the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the more compelling choice. It wins the G2D test by 20.2%, the DirectX 11 test by 7.9%, and edges out the Quadro in DirectX 9 and GPU Compute. Its 132 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it far easier to integrate into a wider range of systems. The smaller 190 mm length and single 8-pin connector simplify installation. Its 7 nm process node and 46.7M per mm² transistor density represent a more advanced manufacturing approach. The launch MSRP of 329 USD positions it in a completely different market segment.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. The Quadro RTX 5000 is the choice for compute-intensive professional workloads where the 173.8% OpenCL advantage and 36.5% Vulkan lead translate directly into faster execution. The RX 6600 is the choice for general 2D and legacy DirectX workloads where its G2D and DirectX 11 wins matter, and where lower power draw is a priority. The benchmark data shows the Quadro as the higher-performing card overall, but the RX 6600 as the more efficient and compact alternative.