Quadro K6000 vs Radeon Pro V520
Quadro K6000
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro V520
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K6000 is positioned at rank 319 and the Radeon Pro V520 is on rank 139, so the Radeon Pro V520 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K6000
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro V520
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon Pro V520 is significantly newer (2020 vs 2013). The Radeon Pro V520 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro V520 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K6000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+200%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (265mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon Pro V520 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $300 (vs $300), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 0.1% better value per dollar than the Quadro K6000.
| Insight | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+0.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K6000 and Radeon Pro V520
Quadro K6000
The Quadro K6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 797 MHz to 902 MHz. It has 2880 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,993 points. Launch price was $5,265.
Radeon Pro V520
The Radeon Pro V520 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1600 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,000 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K6000 scores 7,993 and the Radeon Pro V520 reaches 8,000 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K6000 is built on Kepler while the Radeon Pro V520 uses RDNA 1.0, both on 28 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 2,880 (Quadro K6000) vs 2,304 (Radeon Pro V520). Raw compute: 5.196 TFLOPS (Quadro K6000) vs 7.373 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro V520). Boost clocks: 902 MHz vs 1600 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,993 | 8,000 |
| Architecture | Kepler | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 2880+25% | 2304 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.196 TFLOPS | 7.373 TFLOPS+42% |
| Boost Clock | 902 MHz | 1600 MHz+77% |
| ROPs | 48 | 64+33% |
| TMUs | 240+67% | 144 |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 4 MB+167% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro V520 has 4 GB. The Quadro K6000 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1.5 MB (Quadro K6000) vs 4 MB (Radeon Pro V520) — the Radeon Pro V520 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+200% | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1.5 MB | 4 MB+167% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (Quadro K6000) vs 12.1 (Radeon Pro V520). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12.1+10% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (Quadro K6000) vs VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro V520). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs VCN 2.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264 (Quadro K6000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (Radeon Pro V520).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1.0 | VCN 2.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | VCN 2.0 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K6000 draws 225W versus the Radeon Pro V520's 225W — a 0% difference. The Radeon Pro V520 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K6000) vs 350W (Radeon Pro V520). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 265mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 265mm | 267mm |
| Height | 110mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 35.5 | 35.6 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K6000 launched at $5265 MSRP and currently averages $300, while the Radeon Pro V520 launched at $800 and now averages $300. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 26.6 (Quadro K6000) vs 26.7 (Radeon Pro V520) — the Radeon Pro V520 offers 0.4% better value. The Radeon Pro V520 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2013).
| Feature | Quadro K6000 | Radeon Pro V520 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $5265 | $800-85% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $300 | $300 |
| Performance per Dollar | 26.6 | 26.7 |
| Codename | GK110B | Navi 12 |
| Release | July 23 2013 | December 1 2020 |
| Ranking | #318 | #218 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K6000 and Radeon Pro V520
