Radeon RX 550 vs Quadro P6000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P6000 with Radeon RX 550, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P6000
2016
24 GB 384-bit, 250 Watt
39.73
+461%

P6000 outperforms RX 550 by a whopping 461% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking109550
Place by popularitynot in top-10021
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.942.92
Power efficiency10.889.70
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGP102Lexa
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date1 October 2016 (8 years ago)20 April 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$5,999 $79

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P6000 has 35% better value for money than RX 550.

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 cores3840512
Core clock speed1506 MHz1100 MHz
Boost clock speed1645 MHz1183 MHz
Number of transistors11,800 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate394.837.86
Floating-point processing power12.63 TFLOPS1.211 TFLOPS
ROPs9616
TMUs24032

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length267 mm145 mm
Width2" (5.1 cm)2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 8-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 type384 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount24 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1127 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 432 GB/s112.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Sync IIno data
HDMI-+

Supported 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA6.1-

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. 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 39.73
+461%
RX 550 7.08

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.

Quadro P6000 15307
+461%
RX 550 2728

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.

Quadro P6000 64253
+469%
RX 550 11299

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 39.73 7.08
Recency 1 October 2016 20 April 2017
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro P6000 has a 461.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 550, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 550 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 550 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P6000
Quadro P6000
AMD Radeon RX 550
Radeon RX 550

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 89 votes

Rate Quadro P6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 6684 votes

Rate Radeon RX 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.