Radeon R7 250X vs Quadro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 with Radeon R7 250X, including specs and performance data.
M6000 outperforms R7 250X by a whopping 419% 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 | 228 | 655 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.40 | 0.63 |
| Power efficiency | 8.64 | 5.20 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 13 February 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro M6000 has 122% better value for money than R7 250X.
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 cores | 3072 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 38.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | 1.216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 16 |
| TMUs | 192 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 256 KB |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 210 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1 x 6-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 | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 1625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 96 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 DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.89 | 5.37 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 13 February 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 80 Watt |
Quadro M6000 has a 419.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
R7 250X, on the other hand, has 212.5% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 250X is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
