GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and Intel Arc Pro A60 represent two very different generations of workstation graphics. The data shows the Quadro P6000 winning both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, though the margin varies dramatically depending on the test. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the Quadro P6000 scoring 66,382 against the Arc Pro A60’s 63,485, a 4.6% advantage. The gap widens considerably in the Vulkan test, where the Quadro P6000 reaches 73,590 while the Intel card manages only 57,166, a 28.7% lead for the NVIDIA part. These results place the Quadro P6000 in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the Arc Pro A60 sits at the 88th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Vulkan benchmark represents the most decisive victory for the Quadro P6000. With a score of 73,590 versus 57,166, the NVIDIA card outperforms the Intel Arc Pro A60 by 28.7%. This is not a marginal difference; it indicates a substantial advantage in compute workloads that leverage the Vulkan API. The Quadro P6000’s average benchmark score of 69,986 further underscores its position, sitting just 0.2% below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 and 1.4% above the NVIDIA CMP 90HX. In contrast, the Arc Pro A60’s average score of 60,326 places it effectively level with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, which scores 60,347 (a 0% delta), and 2.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710.

The OpenCL test tells a closer story. Here, the Quadro P6000 scores 66,382 against the Arc Pro A60’s 63,485. The 4.6% delta is meaningful but far less pronounced than in Vulkan. This suggests that in OpenCL workloads, the two cards are more comparable, though the NVIDIA part still holds the edge. The Quadro P6000’s nearest rival in terms of average score is the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140, which is 0.2% higher, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829, which is 1.2% higher. The Arc Pro A60’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896, which is 2.5% above the Intel card, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 at 60,140, which is 0.3% below.

Across both tests, the Quadro P6000 wins two comparisons while the Arc Pro A60 wins none. The consistency of the NVIDIA victory is notable, but the varying margins reveal that the performance gap is workload-dependent. In Vulkan, the Quadro P6000 is categorically superior; in OpenCL, it is merely ahead. For users focused on OpenCL performance, the 4.6% difference might be acceptable, but the Vulkan gap of 28.7% is difficult to ignore.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark. The Quadro P6000 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, using the GP102 chip fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro A60, by contrast, uses the Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-256 chip, manufactured on a much smaller 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 11,500 million transistors on a 269 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 42.8 million per square millimeter. The 6 nm process allows Intel to pack nearly as many transistors into a significantly smaller area, though the older Pascal chip still holds the raw transistor count lead.

Memory configurations diverge considerably. The Quadro P6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc Pro A60 provides 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has double the memory capacity and a 12.7% bandwidth advantage. The Quadro P6000’s memory clock is listed at 1127 MHz with 9 Gbps effective speed, while the Arc Pro A60 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The Intel card’s faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the overall bandwidth still favors NVIDIA.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The Quadro P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines. It achieves a pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 394.8 GTexel/s. The Arc Pro A60 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 131.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 262.4 GTexel/s. In every category, the Quadro P6000 has more hardware resources. The FP32 throughput is 12.63 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 8.397 TFLOPS for Intel. However, the Arc Pro A60 includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pascal-based Quadro P6000. The Intel card also has superior FP16 performance at 16.79 TFLOPS, while the Quadro P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P6000 is the clear winner in raw compute performance and memory capacity. Its 24 GB frame buffer is double that of the Arc Pro A60, making it the obvious choice for workloads that require large datasets to reside in GPU memory. The 432.8 GB/s bandwidth also gives it an edge in memory-intensive operations. In Vulkan workloads, the 28.7% advantage is decisive, positioning the Quadro P6000 as the stronger card for applications that heavily utilize this API. The higher pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s versus 131.2 GPixel/s also suggests better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as high-resolution rasterization.

The Arc Pro A60 wins in specific areas that the benchmark data alone does not capture. Its 16 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced rendering, a feature the Quadro P6000 completely lacks. For users working with modern rendering pipelines that employ ray tracing, this is a significant functional advantage. The Intel card also offers much stronger FP16 performance at 16.79 TFLOPS versus 197.4 GFLOPS, which is relevant for workloads that utilize mixed-precision computing. The 6 nm process node also gives it a transistor density advantage of 42.8M / mm² versus 25.1M / mm², indicating a more power-efficient design. The Arc Pro A60 has a 130 W TDP compared to the Quadro P6000’s 250 W, and it requires only a 300 W suggested PSU versus 600 W.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 is the stronger performer in both benchmark tests, winning the OpenCL comparison by 4.6% and the Vulkan comparison by 28.7%. Its 90th percentile ranking versus the Arc Pro A60’s 88th percentile confirms this hierarchy. Users whose primary concern is raw compute throughput, especially in Vulkan-based applications, should choose the Quadro P6000. The 24 GB memory capacity is another major advantage for large-scale data processing. The Quadro P6000 also has a higher average benchmark score of 69,986 versus 60,326, a 16% difference that places it in a higher performance tier.

The Intel Arc Pro A60 is the appropriate choice for users who need ray tracing support, which the Quadro P6000 cannot provide. Its 16 RT cores and superior FP16 throughput make it more suitable for modern rendering workflows that leverage these features. The lower TDP of 130 W and single-slot design also make it easier to integrate into space-constrained or power-sensitive systems. The Arc Pro A60’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface offers double the bandwidth of the Quadro P6000’s PCIe 3.0 x16 connection, which can benefit data transfer in certain workloads. However, the benchmark results clearly show that the Quadro P6000 is the faster card overall.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69,986, while the Intel Arc Pro A60 averages 60,326. This represents a difference of approximately 16% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Quadro P6000 scores 73,590 against the Arc Pro A60’s 57,166. The NVIDIA card leads by 28.7% in this specific benchmark.

Q: Does the Intel Arc Pro A60 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro A60 features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, based on the Pascal architecture, has no ray tracing cores listed in the specifications.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the Intel Arc Pro A60 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory. The Quadro P6000 also has a wider 384-bit bus versus the Arc Pro A60’s 192-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60, built on a 6 nm process, achieves a transistor density of 42.8M / mm². The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, on a 16 nm process, has a density of 25.1M / mm².

Q: What are the FP16 performance capabilities of each card?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A60 delivers 16.79 TFLOPS of FP16 performance. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 delivers only 197.4 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio to its FP32 throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 | Intel Arc Pro A60 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 6 nm |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 269 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 42.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 240 | 128 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| FP32 Performance | 12.63 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 197.4 GFLOPS | 16.79 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 131.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 262.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 250 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 2.0 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2023-06-05 |