RTX PRO 6000 vs Radeon 760M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 760M with RTX PRO 6000, including specs and performance data.
760M outperforms RTX PRO 6000 by a whopping 1018% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 443 | 1133 |
| Place by popularity | 75 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 65.72 | 0.15 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Phoenix | GB202 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 31 January 2024 (2 years ago) | 2025 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 24064 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 2017 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2599 MHz | 2407 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 25,390 million | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 600 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 83.17 | 1,810 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.323 TFLOPS | 115.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 176 |
| TMUs | 32 | 752 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 752 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | 188 |
| L0 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 23.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 128 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 96 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 1.79 TB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Motherboard Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 29
+1350%
| 2−3
−1350%
|
| 1440p | 18
+1700%
| 1−2
−1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105
+1067%
|
9−10
−1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+1183%
|
6−7
−1183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1133%
|
6−7
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1122%
|
9−10
−1122%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+1025%
|
16−18
−1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1133%
|
6−7
−1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1122%
|
9−10
−1122%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+1114%
|
7−8
−1114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1122%
|
9−10
−1122%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+1133%
|
6−7
−1133%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+1100%
|
8−9
−1100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1157%
|
7−8
−1157%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+1120%
|
10−11
−1120%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+1120%
|
5−6
−1120%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
This is how Radeon 760M and RTX PRO 6000 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 760M is 1350% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 760M is 1700% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.75 | 1.14 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 600 Watt |
Radeon 760M has a 1018% higher aggregate performance score, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 3900% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX PRO 6000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 760M is a desktop graphics card while RTX PRO 6000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
