AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The data presents two very different GPUs: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, a Turing-based workstation card from 2018, and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT, a 2021 RDNA 2.0 consumer card. While their overall PassMark G3D scores are nearly identical, the benchmark breakdown reveals distinct strengths, suggesting they are optimized for different workloads. The Quadro RTX 8000 wins 7 out of 9 head-to-head tests, but the RX 6700 XT takes the lead in specific legacy and 2D scenarios, making the choice heavily dependent on the intended use case.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the clear winner in compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its most dominant victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 101,883 against the RX 6700 XT’s 44,152, a staggering 130.8% advantage. This indicates a massive lead in general-purpose GPU compute, a core requirement for professional rendering, simulation, and scientific applications. It also wins in Geekbench Vulkan with a 31.2% lead (122,637 vs. 93,500), showing strong performance in modern cross-platform graphics APIs. The Quadro’s wins in PassMark DirectX 10, 11, and 12 are more modest, with deltas of 10.5%, 8.7%, and 2.6% respectively, but they still represent a consistent advantage across the board. Finally, its PassMark GPU Compute score of 9,992 is 7% higher than the AMD card’s 9,336, reinforcing its compute-oriented design.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT takes the lead in two specific areas. Its most significant win is in PassMark DirectX 9, where it scores 242 against the Quadro’s 211, a 12.8% advantage. This suggests better optimization for older, legacy DirectX 9 titles. It also wins in the PassMark G2D test, scoring 951 versus 866, an 8.9% lead, which indicates slightly better 2D desktop and interface rendering performance. These wins are niche, but they show that the AMD card is not without its strengths, particularly in scenarios that do not leverage the massive compute and memory resources of the NVIDIA card.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different process nodes. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on a 12 nm process at TSMC, featuring a massive TU102 chip. This chip contains 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.7 million per mm². In contrast, the RX 6700 XT uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture on a more advanced 7 nm process, also from TSMC. Its Navi 22 chip packs 17,200 million transistors onto a much smaller 335 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 51.3 million per mm². This process advantage allows the AMD card to run at much higher clocks, with a base of 2321 MHz and a boost of 2581 MHz, compared to the Quadro’s 1395 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost.

The memory configurations also diverge sharply. The Quadro RTX 8000 is equipped with a massive 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6700 XT has only 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s. This four-fold difference in memory capacity is a primary differentiator for professional workloads. The compute resources also differ: the Quadro has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The RX 6700 XT has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 40 RT cores, but notably lacks tensor cores. This gives the Quadro a theoretical FP32 performance of 16.31 TFLOPS and FP16 of 32.62 TFLOPS, both higher than the RX 6700 XT’s 13.21 TFLOPS and 26.43 TFLOPS respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the defining benchmark of this comparison. The Quadro RTX 8000’s score of 101,883 is more than double the RX 6700 XT’s 44,152, a 130.8% delta. This is not a marginal difference; it speaks to a fundamentally different level of raw compute throughput, likely driven by the higher shader count and memory bandwidth. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro also wins decisively with 122,637 points to 93,500, a 31.2% margin, showing that its advantage extends beyond OpenCL into modern graphics APIs.

The DirectX suite of tests shows a closer contest. In PassMark DirectX 10, the Quadro wins 137 to 124, a 10.5% lead. In DirectX 11, it wins 188 to 173, an 8.7% lead. The DirectX 12 test is the closest, with the Quadro winning 79 to 77, a mere 2.6% difference. This narrowing delta suggests that in the most modern DirectX API, the architectural efficiency of RDNA 2.0 partially closes the gap, though the Quadro still holds the top spot. The G3D test is nearly a tie, with the Quadro at 19,799 and the RX 6700 XT at 19,786, a 0.1% difference that is effectively negligible.

The AMD card’s wins are in the other direction. In PassMark DirectX 9, the RX 6700 XT scores 242 versus 211, a 12.8% improvement, indicating that its architecture handles legacy shader workloads more efficiently. Its PassMark G2D win of 951 to 866 (8.9%) suggests faster 2D rendering pipelines. In GPU compute, the Quadro reasserts itself with a 9,992 to 9,336 win, a 7% margin, further confirming its compute-focused design. Overall, the Quadro’s wins are larger and more frequent, while the AMD card’s wins are confined to older APIs and 2D tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has a higher average benchmark score of 28,421, while the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT scores 27,425.

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

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 130.8% higher than the RX 6700 XT’s score of 44,152.

Q: In which benchmark does the RX 6700 XT have its biggest win?

A: The RX 6700 XT has its biggest win in PassMark DirectX 9, where it scores 242 compared to the Quadro’s 211, a 12.8% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity between the two cards?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RX 6700 XT has 12 GB, a four-fold difference.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Yes, both cards list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) as a supported API.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The RX 6700 XT’s Navi 22 chip has a transistor density of 51.3 million per mm², which is higher than the Quadro RTX 8000’s TU102 chip at 24.7 million per mm².

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the superior card for compute-intensive and professional applications. Its 130.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, 31.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan, and 7% lead in PassMark GPU Compute, combined with its 48 GB of memory, make it the obvious choice for tasks like machine learning, scientific simulation, or large-scale 3D rendering. Its 74th percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the RX 6700 XT’s 72nd, also reflects its higher overall standing. The Quadro’s wins in DirectX 10, 11, and 12, albeit by smaller margins, show it is also capable in modern gaming and graphics APIs.

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT, while trailing in compute, is not without merit. Its wins in DirectX 9 and G2D tests, with deltas of 12.8% and 8.9% respectively, suggest it may be better suited for users who prioritize legacy game compatibility and 2D user interface performance. Its smaller 12 GB memory pool and lower compute scores make it less suited for professional workloads. For a user building a system around older DirectX 9 titles or requiring the fastest possible 2D desktop experience, the RX 6700 XT holds a specific advantage. For anyone needing raw compute power, massive memory capacity, or consistent performance across modern APIs, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the data-backed winner.

Specification Differences

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

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Turing | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

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

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 335 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1395 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 2581 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2424 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 288 | 160 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 72 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | N/A |

| FP32 Performance | 16.31 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 26.43 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 230 W |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

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

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

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2021-03-02 |

| Launch MSRP | 9,999 USD | 479 USD |