NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M6000
- Around 10% higher core clock speed: 988 MHz vs 900 MHz
- Around 20% higher boost clock speed: 1114 MHz vs 925 MHz
- 3.6x more texture fill rate: 213.9 GTexel / s vs 59.2 GTexel / s
- 3x more pipelines: 3072 vs 1024
- 3.6x better floating-point performance: 6,844 gflops vs 1,894 gflops
- 6x more maximum memory size: 12 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 38% higher memory clock speed: 6612 MHz vs 4800 MHz
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 13738 vs 6316
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 13738 vs 6316
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz vs 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz vs 925 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 GTexel / s vs 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 3072 vs 1024 |
| Floating-point performance | 6,844 gflops vs 1,894 gflops |
| Maximum memory size | 12 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz vs 4800 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13738 vs 6316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13738 vs 6316 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 150 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Around 89% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 70535 vs 37354
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 8390 vs 3714
- 8.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 27566 vs 3356
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 8390 vs 3714
- 8.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 27566 vs 3356
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 150 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 70535 vs 37354 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 8390 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 27566 vs 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 8390 vs 3714 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 27566 vs 3356 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M6000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 11792 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 737 | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 37354 | 70535 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 207.14 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 2593.621 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 12.895 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 145.003 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 768.171 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 13738 | 6316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 8390 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 27566 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 13738 | 6316 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 8390 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 27566 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | AMD Radeon R9 270 1024SP | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GM200 | Pitcairn |
| Launch date | 21 March 2015 | 13 March 2015 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | |
| Place in performance rating | 242 | 165 |
| Price now | $2,825 | |
| Type | Workstation | Desktop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 4.69 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 6,844 gflops | 1,894 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 3072 | 1024 |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 GTexel / s | 59.2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Transistor count | 8,000 million | 2,800 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB / s | 153.6 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6612 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M6000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro M6000 vs
ATIRadeon HD 4850 X2
NVIDIAQuadro M6000 vs
AMDRadeon R7 M380
NVIDIAQuadro M6000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro M5500 Mobile
NVIDIAQuadro M6000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1660
NVIDIAQuadro M6000 vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX 7130
NVIDIAQuadro M6000 vs
AMDRadeon Pro W6900X
