Quadro M6000 24 GB vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) with Quadro M6000 24 GB, including specs and performance data.
M6000 24 GB outperforms R7 (Carrizo) by a whopping 1418% 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 | 983 | 238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.14 |
| Power efficiency | 4.00 | 8.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | GM200 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (11 years ago) | 5 March 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 285.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 256 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 3 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 317.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | no data | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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 | 10
−1400%
| 150−160
+1400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 33.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24
−1358%
|
350−400
+1358%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−1400%
|
90−95
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1310%
|
550−600
+1310%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1400%
|
120−130
+1400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1362%
|
190−200
+1362%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1400%
|
270−280
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−1367%
|
220−230
+1367%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1367%
|
220−230
+1367%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−1400%
|
150−160
+1400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
This is how R7 (Carrizo) and M6000 24 GB compete in popular games:
- M6000 24 GB is 1400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.81 | 27.47 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 5 March 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 250 Watt |
R7 (Carrizo) has 1983% lower power consumption.
M6000 24 GB, on the other hand, has a 1418% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.
The Quadro M6000 24 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 (Carrizo) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M6000 24 GB 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.
