Radeon R9 Fury vs Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P6000 with Radeon R9 Fury, including specs and performance data.
P6000 outperforms R9 Fury by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 111 | 233 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.17 | 7.04 |
| Power efficiency | 11.02 | 6.19 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Fiji |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 10 July 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,999 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 Fury has 69% better value for money than Quadro P6000.
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 | 3840 | 3584 |
| Compute units | no data | 56 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 275 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 394.8 | 224.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.63 TFLOPS | 7.168 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 240 | 224 |
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 | no data |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | - | + |
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 | 384 Bit | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | no data | + |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 432 GB/s | 512 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync II | no data |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 6 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| CrossFire | - | + |
| FRTC | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| HD3D | - | + |
| LiquidVR | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| TressFX | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | + |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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 | 140−150
+55.6%
| 90
−55.6%
|
| 1440p | 170−180
+60.4%
| 106
−60.4%
|
| 4K | 75−80
+56.3%
| 48
−56.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 42.85
−602%
| 6.10
+602%
|
| 1440p | 35.29
−581%
| 5.18
+581%
|
| 4K | 79.99
−599%
| 11.44
+599%
|
- R9 Fury has 602% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Fury has 581% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R9 Fury has 599% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 268
+0%
|
268
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 158
+0%
|
158
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P6000 and R9 Fury compete in popular games:
- Quadro P6000 is 56% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P6000 is 60% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P6000 is 56% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.61 | 21.37 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 10 July 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 275 Watt |
Quadro P6000 has a 62% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 Fury in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R9 Fury 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.
