Quadro M6000 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2
33.52
+10.1%

Radeon Pro Vega 64 outperforms Quadro M6000 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking148169
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money2.005.77
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019)
GPU code nameVega 10GM200
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date27 June 2017 (6 years ago)21 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$4,199.99
Current price$6074 $1792 (0.4x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro M6000 has 189% better value for money than Pro Vega 64.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores40963072
Core clock speed1250 MHz988 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1114 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million8,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate345.6213.9
Floating-point performance11,059 gflops6,844 gflops

Size and 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 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

Memory

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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB12 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1572 MHz6612 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s317.4 GB/s

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort

API support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.125+
CUDAno data5.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Pro Vega 64 33.52
+10.1%
Quadro M6000 30.45

Radeon Pro Vega 64 outperforms Quadro M6000 by 10% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro Vega 64 12984
+10.1%
Quadro M6000 11792

Radeon Pro Vega 64 outperforms Quadro M6000 by 10% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

Pro Vega 64 71540
+91.5%
Quadro M6000 37354

Radeon Pro Vega 64 outperforms Quadro M6000 by 92% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Pro Vega 64 74672
+60.9%
Quadro M6000 46401

Radeon Pro Vega 64 outperforms Quadro M6000 by 61% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 33.52 30.45
Recency 27 June 2017 21 March 2015
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M6000 in performance tests.


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

Vote

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


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
NVIDIA Quadro M6000
Quadro M6000

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User Ratings

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


4.3 18 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 143 votes

Rate Quadro M6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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