Quadro 6000 vs Radeon RX 580 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 Mobile with Quadro 6000, including specs and performance data.
580 Mobile outperforms 6000 by a whopping 181% 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 | 336 | 614 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.13 | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 13.89 | 2.42 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 10 December 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $301.69 | $4,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 580 Mobile has 11514% better value for money than Quadro 6000.
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 | 2304 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1077 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 204 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 155.1 | 32.14 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.963 TFLOPS | 1.028 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 144 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 768 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 248 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 747 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 143.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.0 |
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 | 77
+185%
| 27−30
−185%
|
| 4K | 30
+200%
| 10−12
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.92
+4058%
| 162.93
−4058%
|
| 4K | 10.06
+4274%
| 439.90
−4274%
|
- RX 580 Mobile has 4058% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 580 Mobile has 4274% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Fortnite | 183
+182%
|
65−70
−182%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+213%
|
24−27
−213%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+222%
|
18−20
−222%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+182%
|
50−55
−182%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+183%
|
80−85
−183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Dota 2 | 76
+181%
|
27−30
−181%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Fortnite | 81
+200%
|
27−30
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+213%
|
24−27
−213%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+222%
|
18−20
−222%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+217%
|
18−20
−217%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+182%
|
50−55
−182%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+208%
|
24−27
−208%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+213%
|
24−27
−213%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+182%
|
50−55
−182%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+198%
|
45−50
−198%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+182%
|
60−65
−182%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+192%
|
60−65
−192%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+197%
|
35−40
−197%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+205%
|
21−24
−205%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
This is how RX 580 Mobile and Quadro 6000 compete in popular games:
- RX 580 Mobile is 185% faster in 1080p
- RX 580 Mobile is 200% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.09 | 6.43 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 10 December 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 204 Watt |
RX 580 Mobile has a 181.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 104% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 580 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 6000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 580 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 6000 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.
