RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile vs RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell with RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell outperforms RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile by a whopping 136% 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 | 5 | 102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.92 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.72 | 34.05 |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GB202 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 18 March 2025 (less than a year ago) | 19 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $8,565 | 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 | 24064 | 10496 |
| Core clock speed | 1590 MHz | 990 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2617 MHz | 1515 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 92,200 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 600 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1,968 | 496.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 126 TFLOPS | 31.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 192 | 112 |
| TMUs | 752 | 328 |
| Tensor Cores | 752 | 328 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 188 | 82 |
| L1 Cache | 23.5 MB | 10.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 MB | 64 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 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 304 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR7 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 96 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1.79 TB/s | 896.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | Portable Device Dependent |
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 | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | + | + |
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 | 300−350
+110%
| 143
−110%
|
| 1440p | 280−290
+131%
| 121
−131%
|
| 4K | 200−210
+130%
| 87
−130%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 28.55 | no data |
| 1440p | 30.59 | no data |
| 4K | 42.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 138
+0%
|
138
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170
+0%
|
170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 110% faster in 1080p
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 131% faster in 1440p
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 130% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 94.62 | 40.09 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 96 GB | 24 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 600 Watt | 95 Watt |
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has a 136% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile, on the other hand, has 531.6% lower power consumption.
The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is a workstation graphics card while RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
