Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Quadro K6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro K5200 Quadro K6000 K40d K40m K40s K40st K40t
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
240 240 OEM 250 250 OEM 250E 250X 250XE 260 260X 265 265X OEM 340 OEM 350 350 640SP 350 Fake Card 350 OEM 350X OEM 360 360 896SP 360E 370 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 430 OEM 435 OEM 450 OEM 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K6000 with Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

Quadro K6000
2013, $5,265
12 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
19.02
+582%

K6000 outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 582% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking318829
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.52no data
Power efficiency6.52no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameGK110BKaveri Spectre
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date23 July 2013 (12 years ago)14 January 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,265 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2880512
Core clock speed797 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speed902 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,080 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Wattno data
Texture fill rate216.5no data
Floating-point processing power5.196 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48no data
TMUs240no data
L1 Cache240 KBno data
L2 Cache1536 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount12 GBno data
Memory bus width384 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1502 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth288.4 GB/sno data
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 Connectors2x DVI, 2x DisplayPortno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA3.5-

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 HD120−130
+567%
18
−567%

Cost per frame, $

1080p43.88no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+0%
9
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+0%
10
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Quadro K6000 and R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K6000 is 567% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 19.02 2.79
Recency 23 July 2013 14 January 2014

Quadro K6000 has a 581.7% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months.

The Quadro K6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA Quadro K6000
Quadro K6000
AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
FirePro W9100 FirePro W9100
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
GT 640 GeForce GT 640
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
Pro WX 7100 Radeon Pro WX 7100
GRID K520 GRID K520
vs
A100 SXM4 40 GB 40 GB
GRID K520 GRID K520
vs
A800 SXM4 80 GB 80 GB
GRID K520 GRID K520
vs
Arc Pro A60M A60M
GRID K520 GRID K520
vs
RTX A1000 A1000
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
GT 520MX 520MX
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
9800M GS 9800M GS
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
GeForce 410M 410M
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
R7 435 OEM 435 OEM
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
GTX 680 Mac Edition 680 Mac Edition
Quadro K6000 Quadro K6000
vs
GT 625 OEM 625 OEM

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4 114 votes

Rate Quadro K6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 16 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K6000 or Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.