AMD
Radeon R9 Nano vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared R9 Nano and Quadro P6000 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗R9 Nano outperforms Quadro P6000 by ~4% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+4%
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
Higher catalog score: Radeon R9 Nano (~4%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider R9 Nano
- 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
4159
7879
10027
50100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 117–122of 321
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
41
59Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
36
49Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34
46Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
78
79Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
54Better
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
HDMI
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
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares R9 Nano 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.
R9 NanoQuadro P6000
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
188 FPS
—
1080p Ultra
132 FPS
—
1440p Ultra
87 FPS
—
4K Ultra
35 FPS
—
Counter-Strike 2R9 Nano188 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano132 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano87 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano35 FPSQuadro P6000—
Cyberpunk 2077R9 Nano122 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano105 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano63 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano23 FPSQuadro P6000—
Forza Horizon 5R9 Nano153 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano99 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano78 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano51 FPSQuadro P6000—
Hogwarts LegacyR9 Nano99 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano83 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano56 FPSQuadro P6000—R9 Nano24 FPSQuadro P6000—
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100415936%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100416545%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100447046%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1005010067%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 10078791%
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 / 100457752%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100457550%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100447046%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100468256%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100447147%
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 3.0Pascal
Process node28 nm16 nmBetter
Release date20152016
Device classDesktopProf
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count8900 million11.8 billionBetter
Die size596 mm²471 mm²Better
Shader units / cores4096Better3840 CUDA cores
Base clock1000 MHz1506 MHzBetter
Boost clock1000 MHz1645 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 3x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length154 mmBetter267 mm
ThicknessDual-slotDual-slot
Recommended PSU450 WBetter600 W
Power connector8 pin1× 8-pin PCIe
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 1.4a0 native (DisplayPort adapter supported)
DisplayPortDisplayPort 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 HBM24 GBBetter
Memory typeHBMGDDR5X
Memory bus4096 bitBetter384-bit
TFLOPS8.19212.0Better
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 (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · 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: R9 Nano or Quadro P6000?+
R9 Nano has the higher overall gaming score, while R9 Nano 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?+
R9 Nano offers more overall performance, while R9 Nano 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?+
R9 Nano is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
R9 Nano leads in combined 1440p performance. R9 Nano can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
R9 Nano is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
R9 Nano 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?+
R9 Nano 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 R9 Nano 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.