AMD Radeon R9 290X vs NVIDIA Quadro K6000

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R9 290X and NVIDIA Quadro K6000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 290X

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 month(s) later
• Around 5% higher boost clock speed: 947 MHz vs 902 MHz
• Around 8% better floating-point performance: 5,632 gflops vs 5,196 gflops
• Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 8644 vs 8059
• Around 42% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 770 vs 543
• Around 85% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42419 vs 22920
• Around 71% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 114.883 vs 67.178
• Around 35% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 2460.464 vs 1816.61
• Around 50% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.12 vs 7.435
• Around 36% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 120.942 vs 88.889
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 628.757 vs 355.166
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 7055 vs 3711
• Around 90% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 7055 vs 3711

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K6000

• Around 23% higher texture fill rate: 216.5 GTexel / s vs 176.0 GTexel / s
• Around 2% higher pipelines: 2880 vs 2816
• Around 11% lower typical power consumption: 225 Watt vs 250 Watt
• 3x more maximum memory size: 12 GB vs 4 GB
• 4.8x more memory clock speed: 6008 MHz vs 1250 MHz
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 12657 vs 8729
• Around 45% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 12657 vs 8729

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon R9 290X
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K6000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	8644 8059
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	770 543
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	42419 22920
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	114.883 67.178
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2460.464 1816.61
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.12 7.435
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	120.942 88.889
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	628.757 355.166
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8729 12657
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7055 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3353 3356
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8729 12657
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7055 3711
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3353 3356

Compare specifications (specs)