Quadro M6000 vs Radeon RX 5600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600 XT with Quadro M6000, including specs and performance data.
5600 XT outperforms M6000 by a moderate 14% 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 | 196 | 234 |
| Place by popularity | 71 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 36.79 | 1.41 |
| Power efficiency | 16.61 | 8.72 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | GM200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (6 years ago) | 21 March 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $4,199.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5600 XT has 2509% better value for money than Quadro M6000.
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 | 2304 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 213.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 144 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 317.4 GB/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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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 | 106 | 90−95
−15.1%
|
| 1440p | 62
+24%
| 50−55 |
| 4K | 36
+20%
| 30−35 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.63
+94.4%
| 46.67 |
| 1440p | 4.50
+94.6%
| 84.00 |
| 4K | 7.75
+94.5%
| 140.00 |
- RX 5600 XT has 94% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT has 95% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT has 94% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 147
+22.5%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
+14.3%
|
280−290 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+18.6%
|
70−75 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 123
+23%
|
100−105 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 115
+15%
|
100−105 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+18%
|
100−105 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 257
+16.8%
|
220−230 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+23.3%
|
60−65 |
| Far Cry 5 | 148
+23.3%
|
120−130 |
| Fortnite | 140−150
+22.5%
|
120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 185
+15.6%
|
160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+19.1%
|
110−120 |
| Valorant | 275
+14.6%
|
240−250 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 66
+20%
|
55−60 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+18%
|
100−105 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+22.7%
|
110−120 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+15.4%
|
240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+14.5%
|
55−60 |
| Dota 2 | 185
+15.6%
|
160−170 |
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+22.7%
|
110−120 |
| Fortnite | 140−150
+22.5%
|
120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
+15.3%
|
150−160 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+14.5%
|
110−120 |
| Metro Exodus | 81
+15.7%
|
70−75 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+19.1%
|
110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140
+16.7%
|
120−130 |
| Valorant | 272
+18.3%
|
230−240 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+18%
|
100−105 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+20%
|
45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 168
+20%
|
140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+14.5%
|
110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 138
+15%
|
120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+19.1%
|
110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+20%
|
70−75 |
| Valorant | 148
+23.3%
|
120−130 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+22.5%
|
120−130 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80
+14.3%
|
70−75 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+20%
|
190−200 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61
+22%
|
50−55 |
| Metro Exodus | 49
+22.5%
|
40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+16.7%
|
150−160 |
| Valorant | 252
+14.5%
|
220−230 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+14.7%
|
75−80 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+25%
|
24−27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+18.7%
|
75−80 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+14.7%
|
95−100 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+18.6%
|
70−75 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63
+14.5%
|
55−60 |
| Metro Exodus | 30
+25%
|
24−27 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+15%
|
40−45 |
| Valorant | 214
+18.9%
|
180−190 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+20%
|
10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 99
+16.5%
|
85−90 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+28.6%
|
35−40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40 |
This is how RX 5600 XT and Quadro M6000 compete in popular games:
- RX 5600 XT is 18% faster in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT is 24% faster in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT is 20% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.99 | 28.00 |
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 21 March 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
RX 5600 XT has a 14% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.
Quadro M6000, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX 5600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M6000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600 XT is a desktop graphics card while Quadro M6000 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.
