AMD
FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4300 and Quadro P6000 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗FirePro W4300 outperforms Quadro P6000 by ~1% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+1%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 16Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Equal catalog scores
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider FirePro W4300
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Quadro P6000
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL · No dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3259
10079
10027
56100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 16–21of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
NVIDIA Quadro P6000
161 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
32
59Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
29
49Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
27
46Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
79
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
52
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumption—
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / coresBetter
Clock speed—
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequency—
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidth—
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSUBetter
LengthBetter
Die sizeBetter
Memory cache—
Transistor countBetter
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
HDMI
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares FirePro W4300 and Quadro P6000 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
FirePro W4300Quadro P6000
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
162 FPS
—
1080p Ultra
112 FPS
—
1440p Ultra
62 FPS
—
4K Ultra
22 FPS
—
Counter-Strike 2FirePro W4300162 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W4300112 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430062 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430022 FPSQuadro P6000—
Cyberpunk 2077FirePro W4300104 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430088 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430045 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430014 FPSQuadro P6000—
Forza Horizon 5FirePro W4300132 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430084 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430055 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430032 FPSQuadro P6000—
Hogwarts LegacyFirePro W430085 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430070 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430040 FPSQuadro P6000—FirePro W430015 FPSQuadro P6000—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100325959%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100356560%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100397057%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1005610056%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001007923%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100437757%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100417559%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100397057%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100458258%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100397158%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.012 (feature level 12_1)
Vulkan1.2Vulkan 1.3
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedNo dedicated hardware upscaling (DLSS unsupported)
Compute APIOpenCL 2.1CUDA / OpenCL
Architecture and release
ArchitectureGCN 2.0Pascal
Process node28 nm16 nmBetter
Release date20152016
Device classProfProf
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count2080 million11.8 billionBetter
Die size160 mm²Better471 mm²
Shader units / cores7683840 CUDA coresBetter
Base clock930 MHz1506 MHzBetter
Boost clock930 MHz1645 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length171 mmBetter267 mm
ThicknessSingle-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU250 WBetter600 W
Power connectorNone1× 8-pin PCIe
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependent0 native (DisplayPort adapter supported)
DisplayPortmini-DisplayPort 1.2DisplayPort 1.4
USB Type-CNoNot supported
Max monitors44 simultaneous displays
Max resolution4096 × 21607680×4320 at 30 Hz via DisplayPort 1.4
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM4 GB GDDR524 GBBetter
Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5X
Memory bus128 bit384-bitBetter
TFLOPS1.42912.0Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 16
- Specifications
- 0 / 64
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (1)
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: FirePro W4300 or Quadro P6000?+
FirePro W4300 has the higher overall gaming score, while FirePro W4300 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Quadro P6000 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Quadro P6000 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
FirePro W4300 offers more overall performance, while FirePro W4300 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Quadro P6000 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
FirePro W4300 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
FirePro W4300 leads in combined 1440p performance. FirePro W4300 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
FirePro W4300 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
FirePro W4300 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
FirePro W4300 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to FirePro W4300 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.