Radeon RX 6950 XT vs Quadro P3000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P3000 Mobile with Radeon RX 6950 XT, including specs and performance data.
6950 XT outperforms P3000 Mobile by a whopping 340% 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 | 380 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 34.59 |
| Power efficiency | 15.61 | 15.38 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1280 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 1088 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1215 MHz | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 97.20 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.11 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 128 |
| TMUs | 80 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 168 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
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 | 64
−241%
| 218
+241%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−347%
| 134
+347%
|
| 4K | 28
−200%
| 84
+200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.04 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.20 |
| 4K | no data | 13.08 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−299%
|
351
+299%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−388%
|
161
+388%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−167%
|
170−180
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−285%
|
339
+285%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−333%
|
143
+333%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
−92.1%
|
120−130
+92.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−255%
|
181
+255%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−247%
|
300−350
+247%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−322%
|
270−280
+322%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−394%
|
237
+394%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−200%
|
170−180
+200%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−209%
|
350−400
+209%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−167%
|
170−180
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−261%
|
318
+261%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
−36.3%
|
270−280
+36.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−288%
|
128
+288%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−107%
|
199
+107%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
−92.1%
|
120−130
+92.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−239%
|
173
+239%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
−247%
|
300−350
+247%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−322%
|
270−280
+322%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−377%
|
229
+377%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−197%
|
172
+197%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−473%
|
189
+473%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−200%
|
170−180
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
−497%
|
376
+497%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−209%
|
350−400
+209%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−167%
|
170−180
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−270%
|
122
+270%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−74%
|
167
+74%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
−92.1%
|
120−130
+92.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−222%
|
164
+222%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−322%
|
270−280
+322%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
−200%
|
170−180
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
−555%
|
216
+555%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−209%
|
350−400
+209%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
−247%
|
300−350
+247%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−687%
|
236
+687%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
−349%
|
500−550
+349%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−512%
|
153
+512%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−532%
|
120
+532%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−15.9%
|
170−180
+15.9%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−211%
|
450−500
+211%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−295%
|
170−180
+295%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−564%
|
93
+564%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−275%
|
120−130
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−379%
|
163
+379%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−518%
|
230−240
+518%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−626%
|
160−170
+626%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−331%
|
150−160
+331%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−383%
|
58
+383%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−500%
|
174
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−542%
|
77
+542%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−555%
|
144
+555%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−284%
|
300−350
+284%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−457%
|
120−130
+457%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−683%
|
90−95
+683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−667%
|
46
+667%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−156%
|
141
+156%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
−447%
|
80−85
+447%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−629%
|
124
+629%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−596%
|
180−190
+596%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−540%
|
95−100
+540%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−427%
|
75−80
+427%
|
This is how P3000 Mobile and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 241% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 347% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6950 XT is 687% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 6950 XT surpassed P3000 Mobile in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.19 | 66.83 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 335 Watt |
P3000 Mobile has 346.7% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 340% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P3000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6950 XT 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.
