NVIDIA A10G vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two GPUs into clearly different roles. The NVIDIA A10G dominates both recorded tests, but the margin tells the real story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A10G posts 158,063 against the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179, a 113.1% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput. The A10G's average benchmark score of 151,963 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro RTX 6000's 101,872 average sits at the 94th percentile.

For Vulkan workloads, the gap narrows considerably. The A10G scores 145,863, only 12.6% ahead of the Quadro RTX 6000's 129,564. This suggests that when the workload leans on graphics and driver overhead rather than pure FP32 compute, the older Turing card remains competitive. The A10G still wins, but the delta shrinks from over double to a single-digit percentage lead in practical terms.

The A10G's OpenCL result positions it against much larger accelerators. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504, 6.5% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X (160,671, 5.4% ahead). Meanwhile, the Quadro RTX 6000 sits in a lower tier, trading blows with the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750, 4.6% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342, 5.1% ahead). The data indicates the A10G belongs in a server-class compute segment, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation part that has been surpassed by newer AMD offerings in aggregate score.

The wins tally is unambiguous: 2 wins for the A10G, 0 for the Quadro RTX 6000. There is no benchmark in the database where the Turing card comes out ahead. However, the Vulkan result should not be dismissed; a 12.6% deficit means the Quadro RTX 6000 can still handle graphics-heavy professional tasks without falling far behind.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and foundries. The A10G uses the GA102 chip on the Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on the Turing architecture, built by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The process shrink allows the A10G to pack 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, for a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 6000 has fewer transistors, 18,600 million, but on a larger 754 mm² die, yielding a density of just 24.7 million per square millimeter. The A10G effectively doubles the transistor density, which is the primary lever behind its compute advantage.

The shader configuration differs dramatically. The A10G has 9,216 shading units, double the Quadro RTX 6000's 4,608. Both cards have 288 texture mapping units and 96 ROPs, so the texture and pixel throughput are similar on paper. The A10G's texture rate is 492.5 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s for the Quadro RTX 6000, and the pixel rates are 164.2 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s. The Quadro RTX 6000 actually has a slight edge in those two rasterization-limited metrics, which explains why its Vulkan score is not far behind.

Ray tracing cores are identical in count at 72 on both cards. Tensor cores, however, differ: the A10G has 288, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has 576. The Turing card doubles the tensor core count, yet the A10G still wins in FP16 compute. The A10G achieves 31.52 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Quadro RTX 6000 reaches 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 using a 2:1 ratio. This indicates the A10G's FP16 performance is not an artificial boost; it is equal to its FP32 throughput, which matters for mixed-precision AI workloads.

Memory subsystems are similar in capacity and bus width. Both have 24 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. The A10G runs memory at 12.5 Gbps effective, yielding 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 14 Gbps effective, producing 672.0 GB/s. The older card has 12% more memory bandwidth, a factor that likely contributes to its respectable Vulkan showing.

Power and physical design reflect their intended environments. The A10G has a 150 W TDP and is single-slot, requiring only a single 8-pin EPS connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and needs a 600 W PSU. The A10G has no display outputs at all, while the Quadro RTX 6000 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and a USB Type-C port. The A10G uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A10G has an average benchmark score of 151,963, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872. The A10G sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 94th percentile for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Q: How does the A10G compare to the Quadro RTX 6000 in OpenCL performance?

A: The A10G scores 158,063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 113.1% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any recorded test.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The A10G was released in April 2021, and the Quadro RTX 6000 was released in August 2018.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards have 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus. The A10G offers 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro RTX 6000 offers 672.0 GB/s.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has more tensor cores?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 576 tensor cores, which is double the A10G's 288. Despite this, the A10G still achieves 31.52 TFLOPS FP16, nearly matching the Quadro RTX 6000's 32.62 TFLOPS FP16.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every internal specification. The A10G uses the GA102 chip on Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture, built on TSMC's 12 nm process. Transistor count is 28,300 million versus 18,600 million, and die size is 628 mm² versus 754 mm². Transistor density is 45.1M per mm² for the A10G and 24.7M per mm² for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Clock speeds: the A10G has a base clock of 1320 MHz and a boost of 1710 MHz. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a higher base of 1440 MHz and boost of 1770 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the A10G runs at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective, while the Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Compute resources: the A10G has 9,216 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. FP32 performance is 31.52 TFLOPS for the A10G versus 16.31 TFLOPS for the Quadro RTX 6000. FP16 performance is 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1) for the A10G versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Power and cooling: the A10G has a 150 W TDP, is single-slot, uses an 8-pin EPS connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Interfaces and outputs: the A10G has PCIe 4.0 x16 and no display outputs. The Quadro RTX 6000 has PCIe 3.0 x16 and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C. Physical dimensions are nearly identical: both are 267 mm long, with the A10G at 112 mm tall and the Quadro RTX 6000 at 111 mm tall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the defining benchmark for this pairing. The A10G produces 158,063 points, while the Quadro RTX 6000 manages 74,179. That is a 113.1% delta, meaning the A10G is more than twice as fast in this compute-heavy workload. The gap is so large that the Quadro RTX 6000's score is closer to half of the A10G's result than to any competitive finish. This test reflects raw FP32 throughput, where the A10G's 31.52 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro RTX 6000's 16.31 TFLOPS.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. The A10G scores 145,863, and the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564. The delta is 12.6%, a meaningful but not overwhelming lead for the Ampere card. This result aligns with the texture and pixel rates: the Quadro RTX 6000 actually has slightly higher texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s versus 492.5 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s versus 164.2 GPixel/s). The older card's higher memory bandwidth, 672.0 GB/s versus 600.2 GB/s, also helps in Vulkan scenarios that depend on data movement rather than pure shader math.

The aggregate picture is clear. The A10G wins both head-to-head benchmarks and takes the overall win count 2-0. Its average score of 151,963 is 49.2% above the Quadro RTX 6000's 101,872. The A10G's nearest competitor is the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB at 162,504, which is only 6.5% ahead, placing the A10G within striking distance of NVIDIA's flagship datacenter accelerator. The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, is bracketed by AMD workstation cards: the Radeon Pro W6600X sits 5.1% ahead, and the Radeon Pro Vega II Duo sits 4.6% ahead.

In practical terms, the A10G is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads, especially those leveraging OpenCL or FP32 math. The Quadro RTX 6000 retains utility for graphics-oriented tasks, as evidenced by its Vulkan score, but even there it trails. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro RTX 6000 leads the A10G in the database's recorded benchmarks. The A10G's 8 nm process and doubled shader count provide an insurmountable advantage in raw compute, while the Quadro RTX 6000's higher clocks and memory bandwidth only close the gap in specific graphics workloads.