Radeon PRO W6300 vs T1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared T1000 with Radeon PRO W6300, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms PRO W6300 by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 276 | 368 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2023) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
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 | 896 | 768 |
| Boost clock speed | 1395 MHz | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.12 | 97.92 |
| Floating-point performance | 2.5 gflops | 3.133 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 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 16 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 86
+43.3%
| 60−65
−43.3%
|
| 4K | 54
+54.3%
| 35−40
−54.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.81 | 14.21 |
| Recency | 6 May 2021 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 25 Watt |
T1000 has a 39.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
PRO W6300, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO W6300 in performance tests.
Be aware that T1000 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W6300 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
