Radeon RX 580X vs Quadro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 with Radeon RX 580X, including specs and performance data.
M6000 outperforms RX 580X by an impressive 56% 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 | 209 | 314 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.56 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.27 | 7.16 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 1257 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 1340 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 185 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 193.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | 6.175 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 144 |
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 | 241 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 | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 28.74 | 18.41 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 185 Watt |
Quadro M6000 has a 56.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 580X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 35.1% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 580X in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 580X 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.
