Quadro RTX 6000 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 with Quadro RTX 6000, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega M GL / 870
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
12.67

RTX 6000 outperforms M GL / 870 by a whopping 236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking42799
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.33
Power efficiency15.0312.63
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega Kaby Lake-GTU102
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 January 2018 (7 years ago)13 August 2018 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores12804608
Core clock speed931 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHz1770 MHz
Number of transistorsno data18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rateno data509.8
Floating-point processing powerno data16.31 TFLOPS
ROPsno data96
TMUsno data288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72
L1 Cacheno data4.5 MB
L2 Cacheno data6 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB24 GB
Memory bus widthno data384 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data672.0 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 Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
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 HD43
−226%
140−150
+226%
1440p28
−221%
90−95
+221%
4K14
−221%
45−50
+221%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data44.99
1440pno data69.99
4Kno data139.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
−233%
240−250
+233%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−233%
90−95
+233%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 62
−223%
200−210
+223%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
−233%
240−250
+233%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−233%
90−95
+233%
Escape from Tarkov 45
−233%
150−160
+233%
Far Cry 5 42
−233%
140−150
+233%
Fortnite 86
−226%
280−290
+226%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−227%
180−190
+227%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−225%
130−140
+225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−219%
150−160
+219%
Valorant 110−120
−213%
350−400
+213%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 52
−227%
170−180
+227%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
−233%
240−250
+233%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
−231%
600−650
+231%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−233%
90−95
+233%
Dota 2 85−90
−229%
280−290
+229%
Escape from Tarkov 34
−224%
110−120
+224%
Far Cry 5 39
−233%
130−140
+233%
Fortnite 56
−221%
180−190
+221%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−227%
180−190
+227%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
−225%
130−140
+225%
Grand Theft Auto V 41
−217%
130−140
+217%
Metro Exodus 24
−233%
80−85
+233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−219%
150−160
+219%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
−217%
130−140
+217%
Valorant 110−120
−213%
350−400
+213%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 48
−233%
160−170
+233%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−233%
90−95
+233%
Dota 2 85−90
−229%
280−290
+229%
Escape from Tarkov 30
−233%
100−105
+233%
Far Cry 5 36
−233%
120−130
+233%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−227%
180−190
+227%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−219%
150−160
+219%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
−233%
80−85
+233%
Valorant 110−120
−213%
350−400
+213%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 38
−216%
120−130
+216%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−220%
80−85
+220%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−209%
300−310
+209%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−225%
65−70
+225%
Metro Exodus 14
−221%
45−50
+221%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 62
−223%
200−210
+223%
Valorant 130−140
−231%
450−500
+231%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 34
−224%
110−120
+224%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−218%
35−40
+218%
Escape from Tarkov 21
−233%
70−75
+233%
Far Cry 5 24
−233%
80−85
+233%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−223%
100−105
+223%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−233%
60−65
+233%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 24
−233%
80−85
+233%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
−228%
95−100
+228%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−221%
45−50
+221%
Valorant 70−75
−229%
230−240
+229%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16
−213%
50−55
+213%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−233%
30−33
+233%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%
Dota 2 45−50
−219%
150−160
+219%
Escape from Tarkov 10
−200%
30−33
+200%
Far Cry 5 12
−233%
40−45
+233%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−218%
70−75
+218%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−233%
40−45
+233%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9
−233%
30−33
+233%

This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 6000 is 226% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 6000 is 221% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 6000 is 221% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.67 42.57
Recency 7 January 2018 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 24 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 260 Watt

RX Vega M GL / 870 has 300% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 236% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

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


AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000
Quadro RTX 6000

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


1.5 120 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 142 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 or Quadro RTX 6000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.