Quadro M6000 24 GB vs Radeon RX 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 with Quadro M6000 24 GB, including specs and performance data.
M6000 24 GB outperforms RX 580 by a substantial 30% 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 | 312 | 240 |
| Place by popularity | 3 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.62 | 1.14 |
| Power efficiency | 8.83 | 8.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | GM200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (9 years ago) | 5 March 2016 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | $4,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 580 has 1182% better value for money than M6000 24 GB.
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 | 1257 MHz | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1340 MHz | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 185 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 193.0 | 285.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.175 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 144 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |
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_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 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 | 97
−19.2%
| 120−130 |
| 1440p | 43 | 55−60
+27.9%
|
| 4K | 37 | 45−50
+21.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.36
+94.3%
| 41.66 |
| 1440p | 5.33
+94.1%
| 90.89 |
| 4K | 6.19
+94.4%
| 111.09 |
- RX 580 has 94% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 580 has 94% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 580 has 94% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 75−80
+29.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 150−160
+24%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 55−60
+19.6%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50 | 60−65
+22.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 75−80
+29.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 124 | 160−170
+29%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 150−160
+24%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 55−60
+19.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83 | 100−105
+20.5%
|
| Fortnite | 153 | 190−200
+24.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108 | 140−150
+29.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85 | 110−120
+29.4%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 190−200
+24.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 75−80
+29.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 102 | 130−140
+27.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 150−160
+24%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 300−310
+23%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 55−60
+19.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 150−160
+29.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 76 | 95−100
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 106 | 130−140
+22.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 101 | 130−140
+28.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77 | 100−105
+29.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48 | 60−65
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70 | 90−95
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72 | 90−95
+25%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 190−200
+24.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 93 | 120−130
+29%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 55−60
+19.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 150−160
+29.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 71 | 90−95
+26.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82 | 100−105
+22%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49 | 60−65
+22.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44 | 55−60
+25%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 190−200
+24.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80 | 100−105
+25%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 55−60
+22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160 | 200−210
+29.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 45−50
+18.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 28 | 35−40
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 220−230
+27.2%
|
| Valorant | 170−180 | 230−240
+28.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65 | 75−80
+23%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50 | 60−65
+22.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55 | 70−75
+29.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35 | 40−45
+21.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 65−70
+27.5%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 21−24
+23.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22 | 24−27
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 57 | 70−75
+22.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27 | 35−40
+29.6%
|
| Valorant | 110−120 | 150−160
+29.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 37 | 45−50
+21.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22 | 24−27
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75 | 90−95
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26 | 30−33
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41 | 50−55
+22%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 23 | 27−30
+17.4%
|
This is how RX 580 and M6000 24 GB compete in popular games:
- M6000 24 GB is 24% faster in 1080p
- M6000 24 GB is 28% faster in 1440p
- M6000 24 GB is 22% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.04 | 27.41 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 5 March 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 185 Watt | 250 Watt |
RX 580 has an age advantage of 1 year, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 26% lower power consumption.
M6000 24 GB, on the other hand, has a 30% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro M6000 24 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 580 is a desktop 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.
