Radeon 530 vs Quadro P6000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P6000 outperforms Radeon 530 by 1386% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 107 | 776 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 18.70 | 0.61 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Meso |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 21 March 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,999 | no data |
| Current price | $989 (0.2x MSRP) | $627 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P6000 has 2966% better value for money than Radeon 530.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3840 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 394.8 | 24.50 |
| Floating-point performance | 12,634 gflops | 784.1 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro P6000 and Radeon 530 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | 384 Bit | DDR3/GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 9016 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 432 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | DVI-D DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync II | no data |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro P6000 outperforms Radeon 530 by 1386% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro P6000 outperforms Radeon 530 by 1387% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro P6000 outperforms Radeon 530 by 1099% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 230−240
+1338%
| 16
−1338%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 38.94 | 2.62 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 21 March 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 530 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation card while Radeon 530 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
