Radeon PRO W6300 vs Quadro RTX A6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX A6000 and Radeon PRO W6300, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A6000 outperforms PRO W6300 by a whopping 310% 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 | 55 | 412 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.87 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.93 | 40.78 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GA102 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 October 2020 (5 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,649 | no data |
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 | 10752 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1410 MHz | 1512 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1800 MHz | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 28,300 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 604.8 | 97.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 38.71 TFLOPS | 3.133 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 112 | 32 |
| TMUs | 336 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 336 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 84 | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 10.5 MB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 64 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 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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 | 158
+351%
| 35−40
−351%
|
| 1440p | 123
+310%
| 30−35
−310%
|
| 4K | 106
+342%
| 24−27
−342%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 29.42 | no data |
| 1440p | 37.80 | no data |
| 4K | 43.86 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+331%
|
65−70
−331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+350%
|
30−33
−350%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+357%
|
35−40
−357%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+331%
|
65−70
−331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+350%
|
30−33
−350%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+348%
|
27−30
−348%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+310%
|
60−65
−310%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+324%
|
50−55
−324%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+323%
|
40−45
−323%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+335%
|
40−45
−335%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+330%
|
70−75
−330%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+357%
|
35−40
−357%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+331%
|
65−70
−331%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+328%
|
65−70
−328%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+350%
|
30−33
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 139
+363%
|
30−33
−363%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+348%
|
27−30
−348%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+342%
|
12−14
−342%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+310%
|
60−65
−310%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+324%
|
50−55
−324%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+323%
|
40−45
−323%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 128
+327%
|
30−33
−327%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+367%
|
21−24
−367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+335%
|
40−45
−335%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 307
+339%
|
70−75
−339%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+330%
|
70−75
−330%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+357%
|
35−40
−357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+350%
|
30−33
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+337%
|
30−33
−337%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+348%
|
27−30
−348%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+324%
|
50−55
−324%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+335%
|
40−45
−335%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180
+350%
|
40−45
−350%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+330%
|
70−75
−330%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 240−250
+310%
|
60−65
−310%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+349%
|
35−40
−349%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450
+325%
|
95−100
−325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 96
+357%
|
21−24
−357%
|
| Metro Exodus | 84
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+338%
|
40−45
−338%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+333%
|
80−85
−333%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+347%
|
30−33
−347%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+341%
|
27−30
−341%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+338%
|
40−45
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+348%
|
27−30
−348%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+331%
|
35−40
−331%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+338%
|
16−18
−338%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 155
+343%
|
35−40
−343%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+338%
|
16−18
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 146
+317%
|
35−40
−317%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+315%
|
75−80
−315%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+348%
|
21−24
−348%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+338%
|
16−18
−338%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Dota 2 | 128
+327%
|
30−33
−327%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+328%
|
18−20
−328%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+317%
|
30−33
−317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+357%
|
21−24
−357%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+339%
|
18−20
−339%
|
This is how RTX A6000 and PRO W6300 compete in popular games:
- RTX A6000 is 351% faster in 1080p
- RTX A6000 is 310% faster in 1440p
- RTX A6000 is 342% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 54.42 | 13.28 |
| Recency | 5 October 2020 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 25 Watt |
RTX A6000 has a 309.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
PRO W6300, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO W6300 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
