NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, winning both recorded tests against the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the A100 scores 178,627 versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179, a massive 140.8% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a complete rout in raw compute throughput, reflecting the architectural gulf between the two cards.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably but still favors the A100. The A100 records 146,380, while the Quadro RTX 6000 manages 129,564, giving the A100 a 13% edge. This smaller delta suggests that the Vulkan workload, which often leans on graphics-oriented features, lets the older Turing card stay competitive. Still, the A100 leads in every recorded benchmark, so the head-to-head record stands at 2 wins for the A100 and 0 for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Averaging both scores, the A100 posts an avgBenchmarkScore of 162,504, placing it in the 97th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872, good for the 94th percentile. That 60,632-point gap in average score underscores how far apart these products sit in the performance hierarchy, even though both are workstation-class hardware.

For context, the A100's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894 average, 1.4% higher), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094 average, 2.2% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217 average, 1.6% higher). The A100 sits slightly below those newer cards, but its 97th percentile ranking confirms it remains a top-tier compute part. The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, compares closely with the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750 average, 4.6% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342 average, 5.1% higher), while sitting ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487, 4.5% lower) and AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131, 4.9% lower). The data shows the Quadro RTX 6000 is firmly in the middle of the pack, not a leader.

Where Each One Wins

The A100's wins are categorical. In OpenCL, the 140.8% delta over the Quadro RTX 6000 indicates that the A100 is in a different performance class for general-purpose compute. This aligns with its specification profile: the A100 carries 6,912 shading units, 432 tensor cores, and 19.49 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 4,608 shading units, 576 tensor cores, and 16.31 TFLOPS FP32. The A100 also leads in memory bandwidth massively, with 1.56 TB/s from HBM2e across a 5,120-bit bus, compared to 672.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. Any workload that scales with memory bandwidth or raw FP32 throughput will favor the A100.

The Quadro RTX 6000's only relative strength appears in Vulkan, where its 129,564 score is within 13% of the A100's 146,380. That is a smaller deficit than the OpenCL gap, but it is still a loss. The Quadro RTX 6000 does bring 72 RT cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the A100 lists no display outputs and no API support in the database. For tasks that require rendering to a screen, the Quadro RTX 6000 has a clear functional advantage: it offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs, while the A100 has no outputs at all. So the Quadro RTX 6000 wins in the practical sense of being a usable graphics card for interactive work, even though it loses every raw compute benchmark.

The A100 also holds an edge in FP16 compute, posting 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1 ratio) versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). That more than doubles the half-precision throughput, which matters for AI training and inference workloads that rely on mixed-precision arithmetic. The A100's tensor cores, 432 of them, are designed for such tasks, even though the database does not record a dedicated tensor benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB records an avgBenchmarkScore of 162,504, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872. That places the A100 in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 94th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The A100 scores 178,627 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. The delta is 140.8%, meaning the A100 more than doubles the Quadro RTX 6000's OpenCL score.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 6000 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 2 wins for the A100 and 0 for the Quadro RTX 6000. The closest the Quadro RTX 6000 comes is in Vulkan, where it trails by 13%.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The A100 has 40 GB of HBM2e on a 5,120-bit bus with 1.56 TB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: Only the Quadro RTX 6000 has display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The A100 lists no outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor directly.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The A100's GA100 chip packs 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die using a 7 nm process. The Quadro RTX 6000's TU102 chip has 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die using a 12 nm process.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification. The A100 uses a GA100 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses a TU102 chip on a 12 nm process. Transistor counts reflect this: 54,200 million for the A100 versus 18,600 million for the Quadro RTX 6000. Die sizes are closer, 826 mm² versus 754 mm², but transistor density tells the story: 65.6M per mm² for the A100, versus 24.7M per mm² for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The A100 runs a 765 MHz base and 1,410 MHz boost, while the Quadro RTX 6000 runs a 1,440 MHz base and 1,770 MHz boost. The Quadro RTX 6000 has higher clocks, but the A100 compensates with far more hardware. Memory clocks also differ: the A100's memory runs at 1,215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), while the Quadro RTX 6000's memory runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Effective data rates favor the Quadro RTX 6000 per pin, but the A100's wider bus and HBM2e type deliver far more total bandwidth.

Power delivery differs: the A100 uses a single 8-pin EPS connector and has a 250 W TDP, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors and has a 260 W TDP. Both cards list a 600 W suggested PSU. Bus interfaces differ, with the A100 on PCIe 4.0 x16 and the Quadro RTX 6000 on PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro RTX 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the A100 lists no API support in the database. Display outputs are exclusive to the Quadro RTX 6000, as noted.

Release dates also separate them: the A100 launched on 2020-06-21, while the Quadro RTX 6000 launched on 2018-08-12. The A100's predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada; the Quadro RTX 6000's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 6,299 USD; the A100 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The A100 is built on Ampere architecture, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses Turing. This generation gap explains most of the performance disparity. Ampere was designed for datacenter-scale compute, with a 7 nm process and a focus on tensor operations and memory bandwidth. Turing, on a 12 nm process, was NVIDIA's first architecture with RT cores, which the Quadro RTX 6000 includes in its 72 RT cores. The A100 has no listed RT cores, reflecting its compute-first design.

Shader resources differ: the A100 has 6,912 shading units, 432 TMUs, and 160 ROPs; the Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A100's pixel rate is 225.6 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro RTX 6000. Texture rate is 609.1 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. The A100 also has 432 tensor cores, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has 576, but the A100's tensor cores operate on a 4:1 FP16 ratio, yielding 77.97 TFLOPS versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 32.62 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The A100 uses HBM2e, a stacked memory design that provides 1.56 TB/s over a 5,120-bit interface. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses GDDR6, a traditional discrete memory design, with 672.0 GB/s over a 384-bit interface. The A100's 40 GB capacity also exceeds the Quadro RTX 6000's 24 GB. This makes the A100 far better suited for large datasets that must reside in VRAM.

The A100's lack of display outputs is a defining architectural choice: it is a compute accelerator, not a graphics card. The Quadro RTX 6000, with its RT cores, DisplayPort outputs, and full API support, is designed for professional visualization and rendering workloads where interactivity matters.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. If the task is pure compute, especially OpenCL-heavy workloads, machine learning, or scientific simulation, the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB is the obvious choice. Its 140.8% OpenCL lead, 13% Vulkan lead, and 97th percentile ranking versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 94th percentile make that unambiguous. The A100's 40 GB of HBM2e at 1.56 TB/s, 19.49 TFLOPS FP32, and 77.97 TFLOPS FP16 give it a commanding advantage for any memory-bound or tensor-heavy application. Users who need to process large models or datasets without a display output will find the A100 strictly superior.

If the workload requires rendering to a screen, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the only viable option of the two. The A100 has no display outputs, so it cannot drive monitors. The Quadro RTX 6000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, plus RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and Vulkan 1.4. For interactive 3D design, architectural visualization, or any task that needs real-time graphics, the Quadro RTX 6000 wins by default, even though it trails in raw compute scores. Its 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 are still respectable, and its 24 GB of GDDR6 is adequate for many professional workloads.

The A100 also holds advantages in process technology, transistor density, memory bandwidth, and capacity. The Quadro RTX 6000 counters with higher clocks, RT cores, and a lower transistor count that suggests lower complexity, though its TDP is slightly higher at 260 W versus 250 W. Both are end-of-life products, so availability may be limited, but the database shows the A100 as the stronger compute part and the Quadro RTX 6000 as the stronger graphics part.

For a builder assembling a compute node without display needs, the A100 is the data-backed pick. For a workstation that must output to a monitor, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the only one that can do the job. The benchmark record does not offer a middle ground: the A100 wins every recorded test, but the Quadro RTX 6000 wins the practical question of whether the card can be used for interactive graphics at all. Choose based on the intended use case, not on raw scores alone.