Quadro M6000 24 GB vs Radeon HD 8670D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8670D with Quadro M6000 24 GB, including specs and performance data.
M6000 24 GB outperforms HD 8670D by a whopping 2142% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1024 | 190 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.17 |
| Power efficiency | 0.94 | 8.44 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | GM200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 5 March 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 384 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 844 MHz | 988 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 1114 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 8,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.80 | 285.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 24 | 256 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 317.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.2 |
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 | 18
−2122%
| 400−450
+2122%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 12.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2122%
|
200−210
+2122%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2106%
|
750−800
+2106%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−2141%
|
650−700
+2141%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1959%
|
350−400
+1959%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−2100%
|
220−230
+2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2122%
|
200−210
+2122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2106%
|
750−800
+2106%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1959%
|
350−400
+1959%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2122%
|
200−210
+2122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2106%
|
750−800
+2106%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2100%
|
110−120
+2100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
This is how HD 8670D and M6000 24 GB compete in popular games:
- M6000 24 GB is 2122% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 30.71 |
| Recency | 12 March 2013 | 5 March 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 250 Watt |
HD 8670D has 150% lower power consumption.
M6000 24 GB, on the other hand, has a 2141.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro M6000 24 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8670D in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8670D is a desktop card while Quadro M6000 24 GB is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
