Quadro RTX 6000 vs Radeon 530

Place in performance ranking	815	66
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	5.67
Architecture	GCN (2011−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Meso	TU102
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	21 March 2017 (7 years ago)	13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	4608
Core clock speed	1024 MHz	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	1,550 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.50	509.8
Floating-point performance	0.7864 gflops	16.31 gflops

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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	DDR3/GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	24 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	2250 MHz	14000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	672.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12.0	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

Radeon 530 2.64

RTX 6000 48.72
+1745%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Radeon 530 1018

RTX 6000 18797
+1746%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Radeon 530 5015

RTX 6000 146393
+2819%

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

−1700%

270−280
+1700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−1700%

90−95
+1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16 −1713%	290−300 +1713%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1700%	90−95 +1700%
Far Cry 5	10 −1700%	180−190 +1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	12 −1733%	220−230 +1733%
Forza Horizon 4	35 −1614%	600−650 +1614%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −1567%	350−400 +1567%
Metro Exodus	13 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Red Dead Redemption 2	13 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18 −1567%	300−310 +1567%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −1742%	700−750 +1742%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −1678%	160−170 +1678%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1700%	90−95 +1700%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1700%	90−95 +1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Forza Horizon 4	32 −1619%	550−600 +1619%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −1567%	350−400 +1567%
Metro Exodus	5 −1700%	90−95 +1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 −1678%	160−170 +1678%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −1718%	200−210 +1718%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −1742%	700−750 +1742%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −1678%	160−170 +1678%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1700%	90−95 +1700%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1700%	90−95 +1700%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1669%	230−240 +1669%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −1567%	350−400 +1567%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −1718%	200−210 +1718%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −1733%	110−120 +1733%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −1742%	700−750 +1742%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−1733%

110−120

+1733%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1650%	70−75 +1650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1733%	55−60 +1733%
Hitman 3	8−9 −1650%	140−150 +1650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −1614%	120−130 +1614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −1700%	270−280 +1700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−1733%

110−120

+1733%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1650%

70−75
+1650%

This is how Radeon 530 and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

RTX 6000 is 1700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.64	48.72
Recency	21 March 2017	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	24 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	260 Watt

Radeon 530 has 420% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 1745.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 530 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 530 is a notebook card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.

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