Radeon HD 7970 vs Quadro P6000

Place in the ranking	107	380
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.11	2.43
Power efficiency	11.00	3.75
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP102	Tahiti
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	22 December 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$5,999	$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P6000 has 69% better value for money than HD 7970.

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 cores	3840	2048
Core clock speed	1506 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1645 MHz	925 MHz
Number of transistors	11,800 million	4,313 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	300 Watt
Texture fill rate	394.8	118.4
Floating-point processing power	12.63 TFLOPS	3.789 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	32
TMUs	240	128

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).

Bus support	no data	PCIe 2.1 x16
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	274 mm
Width	2" (5.1 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 8-pin	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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 type	384 Bit	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 432 GB/s	264 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync II	no data
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
ECC (Error Correcting Code)	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
High-Performance Video I/O6	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	DirectX® 11
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro P6000 39.99
+193%

HD 7970 13.65

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro P6000 15373
+193%

HD 7970 5248

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:

900p	300−350 +186%	105 −186%
Full HD	260−270 +183%	92 −183%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

23.07
−287%

5.97

+287%

HD 7970 has 287% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Elden Ring	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Fortnite	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
World of Tanks	212 +0%	212 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−105 +0%	100−105 +0%
Valorant	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
World of Tanks	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Fortnite	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

This is how Quadro P6000 and HD 7970 compete in popular games:

Quadro P6000 is 186% faster in 900p
Quadro P6000 is 183% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.99	13.65
Recency	1 October 2016	22 December 2011
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	300 Watt

Quadro P6000 has a 193% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 20% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7970 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 7970 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.