Radeon R7 250 vs Quadro P6000

Place in the ranking	105	795
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.86	0.10
Power efficiency	10.99	2.92
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	GP102	Oland
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	1 October 2016 (8 years ago)	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$5,999	$89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P6000 has 3760% better value for money than R7 250.

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	384
Core clock speed	1506 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1645 MHz	1050 MHz
Number of transistors	11,800 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	394.8	25.20
Floating-point processing power	12.63 TFLOPS	0.8064 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	8
TMUs	240	24

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 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	267 mm	168 mm
Width	2" (5.1 cm)	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 8-pin	N/A
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	2 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1127 MHz	1150 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 432 GB/s	72 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, 1x VGA
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data
Multi-display synchronization	Quadro Sync II	no data
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+
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® 12
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 39.67
+1348%

R7 250 2.74

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 15307
+1347%

R7 250 1058

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:

Full HD

270−280
+1321%

−1321%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

22.22

4.68

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how Quadro P6000 and R7 250 compete in popular games:

Quadro P6000 is 1321% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	39.67	2.74
Recency	1 October 2016	8 October 2013
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro P6000 has a 1347.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

R7 250, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 250 is a desktop one.

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