
Quadro 6000
Popular choices:

Radeon Pro 450
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
Quadro 6000
2010Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 0.6 vs 0 G3D/$ ($4,399 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅200% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 2 GB).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2010-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌482.9% higher power demand at 204W vs 35W.
Radeon Pro 450
2016Why buy it
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 204W, a 169W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 0.6 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $4,399 MSRP).
Quadro 6000
2010Radeon Pro 450
2016Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 0.6 vs 0 G3D/$ ($4,399 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅200% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (6 GB vs 2 GB).
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 35W instead of 204W, a 169W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2010-era hardware with 6 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌482.9% higher power demand at 204W vs 35W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 6 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2016-era hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 0.6 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $4,399 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon Pro 450 better than Quadro 6000?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Quadro 6000 make more sense than Radeon Pro 450?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 67 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 29 FPS |
| high | 42 FPS | 20 FPS |
| ultra | 29 FPS | 10 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 55 FPS | 31 FPS |
| medium | 48 FPS | 18 FPS |
| high | 31 FPS | 10 FPS |
| ultra | 21 FPS | 5 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 22 FPS | 10 FPS |
| medium | 21 FPS | 7 FPS |
| high | 13 FPS | 4 FPS |
| ultra | 11 FPS | 3 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 115 FPS | 47 FPS |
| medium | 91 FPS | 25 FPS |
| high | 73 FPS | 18 FPS |
| ultra | 55 FPS | 12 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 77 FPS | 21 FPS |
| medium | 58 FPS | 12 FPS |
| high | 42 FPS | 8 FPS |
| ultra | 32 FPS | 6 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 36 FPS | 6 FPS |
| medium | 28 FPS | 4 FPS |
| high | 25 FPS | 3 FPS |
| ultra | 19 FPS | 2 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 121 FPS | 123 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 98 FPS |
| high | 81 FPS | 82 FPS |
| ultra | 61 FPS | 61 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 91 FPS | 92 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 61 FPS | 61 FPS |
| ultra | 45 FPS | 46 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 61 FPS | 61 FPS |
| medium | 48 FPS | 49 FPS |
| high | 40 FPS | 41 FPS |
| ultra | 30 FPS | 31 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 121 FPS | 123 FPS |
| medium | 97 FPS | 98 FPS |
| high | 81 FPS | 82 FPS |
| ultra | 61 FPS | 61 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 91 FPS | 92 FPS |
| medium | 73 FPS | 74 FPS |
| high | 61 FPS | 61 FPS |
| ultra | 45 FPS | 46 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 61 FPS | 59 FPS |
| medium | 48 FPS | 44 FPS |
| high | 40 FPS | 35 FPS |
| ultra | 30 FPS | 25 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro 6000 and Radeon Pro 450

Quadro 6000
Quadro 6000
The Quadro 6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 10 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 574 MHz. It has 448 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 204W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,692 points. Launch price was $4,399.

Radeon Pro 450
Radeon Pro 450
The Radeon Pro 450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 30 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 800 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,723 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 6000 scores 2,692 and the Radeon Pro 450 reaches 2,723 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 6000 is built on Fermi while the Radeon Pro 450 uses GCN 4.0, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 448 (Quadro 6000) vs 640 (Radeon Pro 450). Raw compute: 1.028 TFLOPS (Quadro 6000) vs 1.024 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 450).
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,692 | 2,723+1% |
| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 448 | 640+43% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.028 TFLOPS | 1.024 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48+200% | 16 |
| TMUs | 56+40% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB+460% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 1 MB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro 6000 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 2 GB. The Quadro 6000 offers 200% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.75 MB (Quadro 6000) vs 1 MB (Radeon Pro 450) — the Radeon Pro 450 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB+200% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.75 MB | 1 MB+33% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 6000 draws 204W versus the Radeon Pro 450's 35W — a 141.4% difference. The Radeon Pro 450 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 6000) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 450). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 204W | 35W-83% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Perf/Watt | 13.2 | 77.8+489% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro 6000 launched at $4399 MSRP, while the Radeon Pro 450 launched at $0. The Radeon Pro 450 costs 100+% less ($4399 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 0.6 (Quadro 6000) vs Infinity (Radeon Pro 450) — the Radeon Pro 450 offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon Pro 450 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2010).
| Feature | Quadro 6000 | Radeon Pro 450 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4399 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.6 | Infinity |
| Codename | GF100 | Baffin |
| Release | December 10 2010 | October 30 2016 |
| Ranking | #615 | #612 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













