Quadro M6000 vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with Quadro M6000, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 56 outperforms M6000 by a moderate 10% 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 | 208 | 237 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.12 | 1.41 |
| Power efficiency | 11.43 | 8.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2019) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GM200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (9 years ago) | 21 March 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $4,199.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX Vega 56 has 1185% 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 | 3584 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 213.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 224 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 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 | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 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 | 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 | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | + |
| 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 | 115
+15%
| 100−110 |
| 1440p | 77
+18.5%
| 65−70 |
| 4K | 50
+11.1%
| 45−50 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47
+91.7%
| 42.00 |
| 1440p | 5.18
+92%
| 64.62 |
| 4K | 7.98
+91.4%
| 93.33 |
- RX Vega 56 has 92% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 has 92% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 has 91% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+17.3%
|
150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+18.3%
|
60−65 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75−80
+12.9%
|
70−75 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+16.2%
|
130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+17.3%
|
150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+18.3%
|
60−65 |
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+15.3%
|
85−90 |
| Fortnite | 150
+15.4%
|
130−140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+17.5%
|
120−130 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
+17.7%
|
130−140 |
| Valorant | 190−200
+16.5%
|
170−180 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+16.7%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+17.3%
|
150−160 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+15%
|
240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+18.3%
|
60−65 |
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+13.3%
|
120−130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+16.3%
|
80−85 |
| Fortnite | 139
+15.8%
|
120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+11.7%
|
120−130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+10.6%
|
85−90 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| Metro Exodus | 70
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
+14.2%
|
120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
+12.7%
|
110−120 |
| Valorant | 190−200
+16.5%
|
170−180 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+19.1%
|
110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+18.3%
|
60−65 |
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+13.3%
|
120−130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+11.3%
|
80−85 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+14.7%
|
95−100 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+20%
|
100−105 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+13.8%
|
65−70 |
| Valorant | 190−200
+16.5%
|
170−180 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 108
+13.7%
|
95−100 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+13.8%
|
65−70 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+15.8%
|
190−200 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+12.7%
|
55−60 |
| Metro Exodus | 42
+20%
|
35−40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+16.7%
|
150−160 |
| Valorant | 230−240
+15%
|
200−210 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 99
+16.5%
|
85−90 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33 |
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+13.8%
|
65−70 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+17.3%
|
75−80 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+20%
|
30−33 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45−50 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 74
+13.8%
|
65−70 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+11.1%
|
45−50 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20 |
| Metro Exodus | 27
+12.5%
|
24−27 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+25.7%
|
35−40 |
| Valorant | 180−190
+16.9%
|
160−170 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+22.2%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14 |
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+12.9%
|
85−90 |
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+11.4%
|
35−40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+18%
|
50−55 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+25.7%
|
35−40 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 37
+23.3%
|
30−33 |
This is how RX Vega 56 and Quadro M6000 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 15% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 18% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 is 11% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.86 | 27.95 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 21 March 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 250 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 16% lower power consumption.
Quadro M6000, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M6000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 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.
