AMD Radeon RX 6700 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The Quadro RTX 8000, a workstation-class card with a launch MSRP of 9,999 USD, wins the majority of head-to-head tests, while the Radeon RX 6700, an end-of-life gaming card, takes a smaller set of legacy and 2D-focused victories. Across nine shared benchmarks, the Quadro RTX 8000 claims seven wins, while the Radeon RX 6700 secures two, yet the aggregate scoring tells a more nuanced story: the Radeon RX 6700 posts a higher average benchmark score of 30,433 against the Quadro’s 28,421, and it sits at the 75th percentile versus the Quadro’s 74th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 dominates the modern API tests, with its largest margin coming in Geekbench Vulkan. There, the Quadro scores 122,637 against the Radeon’s 83,974, a decisive 31.5% advantage. This is not a marginal gap; it signals a fundamental difference in how the two cards handle low-level graphics workloads, with the Turing architecture’s compute-heavy design pulling far ahead. The gap narrows considerably but remains in NVIDIA’s favor in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro’s 101,883 beats the Radeon’s 97,841 by 4%. In Passmark’s DirectX suite, the Quadro RTX 8000 leads across every iteration: DirectX 10 (137 vs. 115, a 16.1% edge), DirectX 11 (188 vs. 166, an 11.7% edge), and DirectX 12 (79 vs. 71, a 10.1% edge). The Passmark G3D result, a general 3D performance proxy, also goes to NVIDIA, with the Quadro scoring 19,799 against the Radeon’s 18,931, a 4.4% margin.

The compute-side results show a similar pattern. In Passmark GPU Compute, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 9,992, beating the Radeon RX 6700’s 8,240 by 17.5%. That is a substantial lead for a card that is also running 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores, features the Radeon lacks entirely. The AMD card’s two wins are narrower but notable. In Passmark DirectX 9, the Radeon RX 6700 scores 250 against the Quadro’s 211, an 18.5% victory, showing strength in legacy DirectX workloads. The other win comes in Passmark G2D, a 2D graphics test, where the Radeon posts 936 versus the Quadro’s 866, an 8.1% margin. These two wins, while fewer, indicate that the RDNA 2.0 architecture retains an edge in older, less parallel workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different silicon. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 uses the Navi 22 chip on a 7 nm TSMC process, packing 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, by contrast, uses the TU102 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, with 18,600 million transistors spread across a much larger 754 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 24.7 million per square millimeter. The process node gap is stark: 7 nm versus 12 nm, which explains why the AMD chip fits nearly the same transistor count into less than half the die area.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Radeon RX 6700 fields 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, while the Quadro RTX 8000 doubles those figures with 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Quadro also carries 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores; the Radeon has 36 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. Clock speeds favor AMD: the Radeon runs a base clock of 1,941 MHz, a game clock of 2,174 MHz, and a boost clock of 2,450 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 1,395 MHz base and 1,770 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the Quadro’s raw throughput is higher, with 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 against the Radeon’s 11.29 TFLOPS, and 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 against 22.58 TFLOPS.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The Radeon RX 6700 carries 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 8000 carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clocks at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the Radeon’s runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference overwhelms the clock advantage. The Quadro also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Power requirements reflect the performance gap, with the Quadro rated at 260 W TDP and the Radeon at 175 W, and the Quadro requires a 600 W power supply versus the Radeon’s 450 W.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the clear choice for modern, compute-heavy and ray-traced workloads. Its 31.5% lead in Geekbench Vulkan and 17.5% lead in Passmark GPU Compute make it the stronger option for applications that leverage low-level graphics APIs or general-purpose GPU compute. The 4.4% margin in Passmark G3D, while smaller, still puts it ahead in general 3D rendering. The 576 tensor cores and 72 ray tracing cores, combined with 48 GB of VRAM and 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth, position it for professional visualization, AI inference, and large dataset handling. Its DirectX 10, 11, and 12 wins, ranging from 10.1% to 16.1%, show it also handles modern gaming APIs with authority, though its workstation pedigree suggests that is not its primary target.

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins where legacy APIs and 2D tasks matter. Its 18.5% lead in Passmark DirectX 9 indicates that older games or applications built on DirectX 9 will run disproportionately better on this card. The 8.1% margin in Passmark G2D makes it the stronger choice for 2D desktop work or applications that stress 2D rendering paths. Its higher average benchmark score, 30,433 versus 28,421, and its 75th percentile rank versus the Quadro’s 74th, suggest that across a broad mix of workloads, the Radeon is not outclassed despite losing most head-to-head tests. The Radeon’s lower TDP of 175 W and single 8-pin power connector also make it a more power-efficient option, though the data pack does not include efficiency metrics beyond those figures.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 has a higher average benchmark score of 30,433, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000’s 28,421, a difference of about 7.1%.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro RTX 8000 in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122,637 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 31.5% higher than the Radeon RX 6700’s 83,974.

Q: In which benchmark does the Radeon RX 6700 have its largest win?

A: The Radeon RX 6700’s largest win is in Passmark DirectX 9, where it scores 250 against the Quadro’s 211, an 18.5% margin.

Q: What is the memory size and bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 4,608 shading units and 72 ray tracing cores, while the Radeon RX 6700 has 2,304 shading units and 36 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do the percentile ranks compare?

A: The Radeon RX 6700 sits at the 75th percentile against all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 8000 sits at the 74th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6700 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 17,200 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | 335 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.3M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1941 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2450 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Size | 10 GB | 48 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 144 | 288 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 576 |

| FP32 Performance | 11.29 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 22.58 TFLOPS | 32.62 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 175 W | 260 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions (H) | 110 mm | 111 mm |