NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB records an average benchmark score of 187,147, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872. The A100 sits at the 98th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the RTX 6000’s 94th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A100 SXM4 40 GB scores 201,096 versus 74,179 for the Quadro RTX 6000. That is a 171.1% advantage for the A100, making it the clear leader in raw compute throughput.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 6000 win any benchmark category?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the A100 taking both recorded tests. The A100 wins Geekbench OpenCL by 171.1% and Geekbench Vulkan by 33.7%, giving it a 2-0 win record against the RTX 6000.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and type?

A: The A100 SXM4 40 GB uses 40 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 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. The A100 offers 67% more capacity and over twice the bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts and process nodes compare?

A: The A100 uses a 7 nm process (TSMC) with 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die. The RTX 6000 uses a 12 nm process (TSMC) with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. The A100’s transistor density is 65.6M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

Q: Which card is newer and what is their production status?

A: The A100 SXM4 40 GB was released on 2020-05-13, while the Quadro RTX 6000 launched on 2018-08-12. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The A100’s predecessor is Tesla Turing, and its successor is Server Ada; the RTX 6000’s predecessor is Quadro Volta, and its successor is Workstation Ampere.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The A100 SXM4 40 GB is built on Ampere architecture with the GA100 chip, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses Turing architecture with the TU102 chip. This generational split explains several core differences in compute capability and feature set.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The A100 is fabricated on a 7 nm node at TSMC, whereas the RTX 6000 uses a 12 nm node, also at TSMC. This process advantage allows the A100 to pack 54,200 million transistors versus 18,600 million, despite a similar die size (826 mm² versus 754 mm²). The resulting transistor density is 65.6M per mm² for the A100, compared to 24.7M per mm² for the RTX 6000.

Shader and texture resources diverge sharply. The A100 has 6,912 shading units, 432 TMUs, and 160 ROPs. The RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A100 also fields 432 tensor cores, but the RTX 6000 includes 72 dedicated RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The A100 lists no RT core count, reflecting its server compute focus, while the RTX 6000’s RT cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Memory architecture is a fundamental split. The A100 uses HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 6000 uses GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A100’s memory clock is listed as 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), whereas the RTX 6000’s memory runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The A100’s wider bus compensates for lower clock speed, yielding far higher total bandwidth.

API support also differs. The RTX 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A100’s API fields are null in the database, suggesting it is not oriented toward graphics APIs. The RTX 6000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and one USB Type-C port, while the A100 has no display outputs at all.

Clock speeds tell a story of different design goals. The RTX 6000 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the A100 runs at 1095 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the A100 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 225.6 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s, and 609.1 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive compute-oriented winner. The A100 SXM4 40 GB outperforms the Quadro RTX 6000 in every recorded benchmark, with a 171.1% lead in OpenCL and a 33.7% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 187,147 sits 83.7% above the RTX 6000’s 101,872. For any workload that stresses raw compute throughput, the A100 is the superior choice.

However, the RTX 6000 is not without purpose. It offers display outputs, RT cores, and graphics API support, making it suitable for visualization or ray tracing tasks. The A100 has no display outputs and no listed graphics APIs, so it is strictly a server compute accelerator. If the workload requires rendering to a screen, the RTX 6000 is the only viable option from this pair.

The A100 also leads in memory capacity and bandwidth, with 40 GB versus 24 GB and 1.56 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s. For large datasets or models that exceed 24 GB, the A100’s capacity advantage is decisive. The RTX 6000’s 260 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU make it more power-friendly than the A100’s 400 W TDP and 800 W suggested PSU, but that comes with a substantial compute penalty.

In short, the A100 is for compute-heavy server workloads where maximum throughput matters. The RTX 6000 is for workstation tasks that need display output and graphics features, accepting lower compute performance. The benchmark data gives no scenario where the RTX 6000 wins on raw compute.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The A100 SXM4 40 GB uses an SXM module form factor with no power connectors, while the RTX 6000 is a dual-slot card requiring one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector. The A100 is a PCIe 4.0 x16 device; the RTX 6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Memory is a major differentiator: 40 GB HBM2e versus 24 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 5120 bit versus 384 bit, and bandwidth is 1.56 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s. The A100’s memory clock is 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), while the RTX 6000’s is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ: 6,912 shading units, 432 TMUs, 160 ROPs, and 432 tensor cores for the A100; 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores for the RTX 6000. The A100 has no listed RT cores.

Clock speeds: the A100 runs at 1095 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost; the RTX 6000 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. Pixel rate is 225.6 GPixel/s for the A100 versus 169.9 GPixel/s for the RTX 6000. Texture rate is 609.1 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput is 19.49 TFLOPS for the A100 versus 16.31 TFLOPS for the RTX 6000. FP16 throughput is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) for the A100 versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RTX 6000.

Power and physical specs: TDP is 400 W versus 260 W. Suggested PSU is 800 W versus 600 W. The RTX 6000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the A100 has null dimensions in the database.

Release dates and ecosystem: the A100 launched 2020-05-13, the RTX 6000 on 2018-08-12. The A100’s generation is “Server Ampere (Axx)”, the RTX 6000’s is “Quadro Turing (Tx000)”. The RTX 6000 has a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD, while the A100 has no listed MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is a blowout. The A100 scores 201,096 against the RTX 6000’s 74,179, a delta of 171.1%. This is the largest gap in the head-to-head data. The A100’s higher FP32 throughput (19.49 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS) and vastly higher memory bandwidth (1.56 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s) likely drive this result, although the benchmark data does not isolate those factors.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is closer but still favors the A100. The A100 scores 173,198 versus 129,564, a 33.7% advantage. This test shows the A100 winning even in a graphics-oriented API, despite the RTX 6000 having dedicated RT cores and display support. The RTX 6000’s higher boost clock (1770 MHz versus 1410 MHz) does not close the gap.

When compared to their nearest rivals, the two cards occupy different competitive spaces. The A100’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation with an average score of 184,664, which trails by 1.3%. The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB scores 183,725, a 1.9% gap. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 2.8% behind. Only the Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB outpaces it, with a 3.7% higher score.

The RTX 6000’s nearest rivals are all AMD cards. The Radeon RX 7900M scores 97,487, a 4.5% deficit. The Radeon Pro VII is 4.9% behind. The Radeon Pro Vega II Duo scores 106,750, a 4.6% lead, and the Radeon Pro W6600X is 5.1% ahead. This shows the RTX 6000 is competitive within its workstation class but far below the A100’s absolute performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The A100 SXM4 40 GB wins every compute benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its 171.1% OpenCL lead makes it the dominant choice for general-purpose compute, deep learning training, or scientific simulation. The 33.7% Vulkan win further demonstrates that even in lower-level graphics APIs, the A100’s raw resources overcome the RTX 6000’s architectural advantages.

The A100 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 40 GB versus 24 GB, it can hold larger models or datasets in memory without spilling to host memory. The 1.56 TB/s bandwidth is more than double the RTX 6000’s 672.0 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound workloads.

The RTX 6000 wins in areas not covered by the benchmark scores. It has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C), while the A100 has none. It includes 72 RT cores for hardware ray tracing, which the A100 lacks. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the A100 lists no graphics APIs.

The RTX 6000 also wins on power efficiency in absolute terms. Its 260 W TDP is lower than the A100’s 400 W, and its suggested PSU is 600 W versus 800 W. For a workstation environment with limited power budget, the RTX 6000 is the lighter load.

The RTX 6000’s higher boost clock (1770 MHz versus 1410 MHz) and base clock (1440 MHz versus 1095 MHz) suggest it can respond faster to burst workloads, though this does not translate into benchmark wins. The RTX 6000’s form factor (dual-slot, 267 mm length) fits standard workstation chassis, while the A100’s SXM module requires a server platform.

In summary, the A100 wins on compute performance, memory, and bandwidth. The RTX 6000 wins on display capability, ray tracing support, and lower power draw. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is server compute or workstation graphics.