Radeon Pro 5700 vs Quadro M6000
Radeon Pro 5700
Popular choices:
Quadro M6000
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro 5700
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon Pro 5700 uses modern memory architecture. The Radeon Pro 5700 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M6000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.6% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (12 GB vs 8 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon Pro 5700.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.6%) |
| Longevity | 🔮Strong Longevity (RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) / 7nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon Pro 5700 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $250 versus $500 for the Quadro M6000, it costs 50% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 94.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+94.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($250) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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 Radeon Pro 5700 and Quadro M6000
Radeon Pro 5700
The Radeon Pro 5700 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 4 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1243 MHz to 1350 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,469 points.
Quadro M6000
The Quadro M6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 21 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 988 MHz to 1114 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,769 points. Launch price was $4,199.99.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro 5700 scores 11,469 and the Quadro M6000 reaches 11,769 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro 5700 is built on RDNA 1.0 while the Quadro M6000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 7 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 2,304 (Radeon Pro 5700) vs 3,072 (Quadro M6000). Raw compute: 6.221 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 5700) vs 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000). Boost clocks: 1350 MHz vs 1114 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,469 | 11,769+3% |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2304 | 3072+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.221 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS+10% |
| Boost Clock | 1350 MHz+21% | 1114 MHz |
| ROPs | 64 | 96+50% |
| TMUs | 144 | 192+33% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+33% | 3 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon Pro 5700 comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M6000 has 12 GB. The Quadro M6000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (Radeon Pro 5700) vs 3 MB (Quadro M6000) — the Radeon Pro 5700 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 12 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 384-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+33% | 3 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Radeon Pro 5700) vs 12/1 (Quadro M6000). Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12/1 |
| Vulkan | 1.4+27% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 2.0 (Radeon Pro 5700) vs NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000). Decoder: VCN 2.0 vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (Radeon Pro 5700) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 2.0 | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | VCN 2.0 | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro 5700 draws 130W versus the Quadro M6000's 250W — a 63.2% difference. The Radeon Pro 5700 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon Pro 5700) vs 500W (Quadro M6000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 130W-48% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 88.2+87% | 47.1 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro 5700 launched at $799 MSRP and currently averages $250, while the Quadro M6000 launched at $4999 and now averages $500. The Radeon Pro 5700 costs 50% less ($250 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 45.9 (Radeon Pro 5700) vs 23.5 (Quadro M6000) — the Radeon Pro 5700 offers 95.3% better value. The Radeon Pro 5700 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon Pro 5700 | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $799-84% | $4999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $250-50% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 45.9+95% | 23.5 |
| Codename | Navi 10 | GM200 |
| Release | August 4 2020 | March 21 2015 |
| Ranking | #238 | #228 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon Pro 5700 and Quadro M6000
