NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB records an average benchmark score of 207,124, placing it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872, which puts it in the 94th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the A100 in the recorded OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the A100 scores 207,124 against the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. This represents a 179.2% advantage for the A100.

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two cards?

A: The A100 ships with 80 GB of HBM2e memory across a 5120-bit bus, delivering 1.94 TB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support real-time ray tracing?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 includes 72 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The A100's specifications in the database list no RT cores, indicating it does not feature dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Quadro RTX 6000?

A: The database records a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD for the Quadro RTX 6000. The A100's launch MSRP is not listed.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 boosts to 1770 MHz, while the A100 boosts to 1410 MHz. The Quadro's base clock is also higher at 1440 MHz versus 1065 MHz for the A100.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The A100 PCIe 80 GB is built on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA100 chip, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the Turing architecture with the TU102 chip. This generational gap drives most of the performance and feature divergence.

Manufacturing processes differ substantially. The A100 is fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm node, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the older 12 nm process. This allows the A100 to pack 54,200 million transistors onto an 826 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 65.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 6000 contains 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, with a density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The A100's density advantage is roughly 2.7 times higher, a direct consequence of the more advanced process node.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The A100 uses HBM2e stacked memory with an enormous 5120-bit bus, whereas the Quadro RTX 6000 relies on GDDR6 memory with a 384-bit bus. This gives the A100 a bandwidth of 1.94 TB/s compared to 672.0 GB/s for the Quadro. The A100 also offers 80 GB of capacity versus 24 GB, making it suitable for much larger datasets.

Compute resources reveal different design priorities. The A100 has 6912 shading units, 432 TMUs, and 160 ROPs, plus 432 tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but includes 576 tensor cores and 72 RT cores. The A100's higher shading unit count and TMU/ROP counts position it for raw compute throughput, while the Quadro's tensor core count is higher but its FP16 execution is less efficient. The A100's tensor cores operate at a 4:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 77.97 TFLOPS, while the Quadro's 2:1 ratio yields 32.62 TFLOPS.

The A100 has no display outputs, making it a pure compute accelerator. The Quadro RTX 6000 includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs, supporting a full workstation display configuration. The A100 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, offering double the interconnect bandwidth for data transfer. Additionally, the A100's API support is not listed in the database, whereas the Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison, and the result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB scores 207,124, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 74,179. The A100 wins by 179.2%. This is not a marginal difference; it is a complete rout. The A100 is nearly three times faster in this compute-oriented workload.

To contextualize this result, the A100's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA PG506-232 at 225,124 (8% faster), the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D at 219,827 (5.8% faster), the NVIDIA RTX 6000D at 195,964 (5.7% slower), and the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB at 194,415 (6.5% slower). The A100 sits comfortably in the upper tier of professional GPUs, though it is not the absolute fastest in the database.

The Quadro RTX 6000's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average score of 101,872 places it slightly above the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487, 4.5% slower) and the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131, 4.9% slower), but below the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750, 4.6% faster) and AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342, 5.1% faster). The Quadro is a mid-pack performer among its peers, while the A100 is near the top of the professional GPU hierarchy.

The A100 also records a separate Vulkan benchmark? No, the A100 only has the OpenCL result. The Quadro RTX 6000, however, has an additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 129,564, which is higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the Quadro can perform better in graphics-oriented APIs, but the A100's lack of display outputs and graphics driver focus means OpenCL is the relevant metric for compute workloads.

# Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: Ampere (A100) vs. Turing (Quadro RTX 6000)
• Chip: GA100 vs. TU102
• Generation: Server Ampere (Axx) vs. Quadro Turing (Tx000)
• Process Node: 7 nm vs. 12 nm
• Transistors: 54,200 million vs. 18,600 million
• Die Size: 826 mm² vs. 754 mm²
• Transistor Density: 65.6M / mm² vs. 24.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1065 MHz vs. 1440 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1410 MHz vs. 1770 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1512 MHz (3 Gbps effective) vs. 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 80 GB vs. 24 GB
• Memory Type: HBM2e vs. GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 5120 bit vs. 384 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 1.94 TB/s vs. 672.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 6912 vs. 4608
• TMUs: 432 vs. 288
• ROPs: 160 vs. 96
• RT Cores: Not listed vs. 72
• Tensor Cores: 432 vs. 576
• Pixel Rate: 225.6 GPixel/s vs. 169.9 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 609.1 GTexel/s vs. 509.8 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 19.49 TFLOPS vs. 16.31 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) vs. 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 300 W vs. 260 W
• Power Connectors: 8-pin EPS vs. 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 700 W vs. 600 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs vs. 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
• API Support: Not listed vs. DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4
• Release Date: 2021-06-27 vs. 2018-08-12
• Predecessor: Tesla Turing vs. Quadro Volta
• Successor: Server Ada vs. Workstation Ampere
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs. 6,299 USD

Both cards are dual-slot, have identical physical dimensions (267 mm length, 111 mm height), and are end-of-life in production status.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 179.2% in the recorded OpenCL benchmark. This is a generational leap, not an incremental improvement. The A100's 7 nm Ampere architecture, HBM2e memory with 1.94 TB/s bandwidth, and 80 GB capacity make it a superior choice for compute-heavy workloads.

For professionals running large-scale parallel computation, machine learning training, or scientific simulations, the A100 is the clear winner. Its FP32 throughput of 19.49 TFLOPS exceeds the Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance of 77.97 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro's 32.62 TFLOPS. The A100's memory bandwidth advantage is nearly threefold, which directly benefits memory-bound kernels.

The Quadro RTX 6000 retains relevance in specific scenarios. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, making it suitable for visualization workstations that require driving multiple monitors. Its RT cores enable hardware ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the A100. For graphics professionals using DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, the Quadro has explicit API support, while the A100's API compatibility is not documented in the database.

The Quadro RTX 6000 also draws less power (260 W versus 300 W) and has a lower suggested PSU requirement (600 W versus 700 W). However, these power savings do not translate into competitive performance. The A100's 99th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 94th percentile underscores the gap.

# Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB wins in:

• Raw compute performance: 179.2% ahead in OpenCL.
• FP32 throughput: 19.49 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS.
• FP16 throughput: 77.97 TFLOPS versus 32.62 TFLOPS, a 2.4x advantage.
• Memory capacity: 80 GB versus 24 GB, critical for large models or datasets.
• Memory bandwidth: 1.94 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s, a 2.9x advantage.
• Pixel fill rate: 225.6 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s.
• Texture fill rate: 609.1 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s.
• Interconnect: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Transistor density: 65.6M / mm² versus 24.7M / mm², indicating a more modern design.

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 wins in:

• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C versus none.
• Ray tracing: 72 RT cores versus none listed.
• Tensor core count: 576 versus 432, though the A100's FP16 execution efficiency compensates.
• Clock speeds: 1770 MHz boost versus 1410 MHz boost.
• Power draw: 260 W versus 300 W.
• API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus no listed APIs.
• Launch MSRP: Listed at 6,299 USD, while the A100 has no recorded MSRP.

The use-case split is straightforward. The A100 is the tool for compute-intensive, server-side workloads where display output is irrelevant. The Quadro RTX 6000 serves workstations that need both visualization capabilities and moderate compute. The benchmark data, however, leaves no doubt about which card delivers more raw performance. For anyone whose primary concern is compute throughput, the A100 is the superior choice by a wide margin.