NVIDIA A10G vs NVIDIA RTX 6000D Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 6000D and NVIDIA A10G represent two distinct generations of professional computing. The data shows a significant performance gulf between the Blackwell-architecture RTX 6000D and the Ampere-based A10G, with the newer card dominating in raw compute and memory bandwidth. This analysis focuses exclusively on the benchmark results and architectural specifications provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a decisive outcome. The NVIDIA RTX 6000D scores 388,405 points, while the NVIDIA A10G manages 158,063 points. This translates to a delta of 145.7% in favor of the RTX 6000D. In practical terms, the RTX 6000D delivers more than double the compute performance of the A10G in this workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap that places the two cards in entirely different performance tiers.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the pattern holds. The RTX 6000D achieves an average score of 195,964 across all tests, placing it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs. The A10G, by contrast, posts an average score of 151,963 and sits in the 97th percentile. While the percentile difference appears small, the absolute score difference is substantial: the RTX 6000D is roughly 29% faster than the A10G on average. The RTX 6000D’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB, scores 194,415, putting the RTX 6000D just 0.8% ahead. Against the A100 SXM4 40 GB, the RTX 6000D leads by 4.7%, and it trails the A100 PCIe 80 GB by 5.4%. The A10G’s competitive position is weaker: it sits only 1.1% ahead of the Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB, but falls 5.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X and 6.5% behind the A100 PCIe 40 GB. The data indicates that the RTX 6000D competes with top-tier data center accelerators, while the A10G aligns with mid-range professional cards.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test specifically, the RTX 6000D’s 388,405 score dwarfs the A10G’s 158,063. This single data point encapsulates the wider trend: the RTX 6000D offers roughly 2.46 times the OpenCL performance of the A10G. For workloads that rely on general-purpose compute, this margin is decisive.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 6000D wins in every category where data is available. It holds a 100% win rate in the head-to-head comparison, with one win in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The A10G has zero wins. This is not a close contest; the RTX 6000D is categorically superior in compute performance.

The RTX 6000D also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. It ships with 84 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 448-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 1.40 TB/s. The A10G offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, with 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 6000D provides 3.5 times the memory capacity and 2.33 times the bandwidth. For large datasets, model training, or rendering scenes that exceed 24 GB, the A10G simply runs out of memory. The RTX 6000D’s 84 GB frame buffer is a major advantage for workloads that require holding massive models or high-resolution textures in memory.

The RTX 6000D also wins decisively on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 97.04 TFLOPS, versus 31.52 TFLOPS for the A10G. That is a 3.08 times advantage. Similarly, FP16 performance is 97.04 TFLOPS on the RTX 6000D and 31.52 TFLOPS on the A10G, maintaining the same 3.08 times lead. Texture and pixel rates follow suit: the RTX 6000D achieves 1,516.3 GTexel/s and 466.6 GPixel/s, while the A10G manages 492.5 GTexel/s and 164.2 GPixel/s.

The A10G does hold one advantage: power efficiency. It has a 150 W TDP compared to the RTX 6000D’s 600 W. This means the A10G consumes one quarter of the power to deliver roughly one third of the FP32 performance. In scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint, the A10G offers a better performance-per-watt profile. However, for absolute performance, the RTX 6000D is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The RTX 6000D uses the GB202 chip, based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The A10G uses the GA102 chip, based on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process difference is a major factor in the performance gap: the 5 nm node offers higher transistor density and better power characteristics than the 8 nm node.

The transistor counts are starkly different. The RTX 6000D packs 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, giving a density of 122.9 million transistors per mm². The A10G has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, with a density of 45.1 million per mm². The RTX 6000D has 3.26 times the transistor count and nearly 2.7 times the density. This explains the massive compute advantage.

The memory subsystems differ completely. The RTX 6000D uses GDDR7 memory, the latest generation, while the A10G uses GDDR6. The RTX 6000D’s memory runs at 1560 MHz with 25 Gbps effective speed, while the A10G runs at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective. The bus width also differs: 448 bit on the RTX 6000D versus 384 bit on the A10G. Combined, these differences produce the 1.40 TB/s versus 600.2 GB/s bandwidth gap.

The compute unit counts are also vastly different. The RTX 6000D has 19,968 shading units, 624 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. It also features 156 RT cores and 624 tensor cores. The A10G has 9,216 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 72 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The RTX 6000D has roughly 2.17 times the shading units, TMUs, and tensor cores, and exactly 2.17 times the RT cores. This doubling of resources across the board is consistent with the measured performance gap.

The cards also differ in physical and electrical design. The RTX 6000D is a dual-slot card, 304 mm long, 137 mm high, and 40 mm wide, with a 16-pin power connector and a suggested 1000 W PSU. The A10G is a single-slot card, 267 mm long and 112 mm high, with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The RTX 6000D uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the A10G uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The RTX 6000D has 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs; the A10G has no display outputs, indicating it is designed for server or accelerator use. The RTX 6000D was released on 2025-07-13, while the A10G was released on 2021-04-11. The A10G is end-of-life, while the RTX 6000D is active.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 6000D than the A10G in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX 6000D scores 388,405 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, versus 158,063 for the A10G, a delta of 145.7%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 6000D has 84 GB of GDDR7 memory, while the A10G has 24 GB of GDDR6. This is a 60 GB difference.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute?

A: The RTX 6000D delivers 97.04 TFLOPS FP32, while the A10G delivers 31.52 TFLOPS. The RTX 6000D is 3.08 times faster.

Q: Does the A10G have any advantage?

A: Yes, the A10G has a 150 W TDP, compared to the RTX 6000D’s 600 W. It also uses a single-slot design, and has no display outputs.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The RTX 6000D uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the A10G uses an 8 nm process at Samsung. The RTX 6000D has a transistor density of 122.9M per mm², versus 45.1M per mm² for the A10G.

Q: How does the RTX 6000D compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 6000D is 0.8% ahead of the Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB, 4.7% ahead of the A100 SXM4 40 GB, and 6.1% ahead of the RTX 5000 Ada Generation, but 5.4% behind the A100 PCIe 80 GB.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 6000D | NVIDIA A10G |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 122.9M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1992 MHz | 1320 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2430 MHz | 1710 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1560 MHz (25 Gbps effective) | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 84 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 448 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.40 TB/s | 600.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19968 | 9216 |

| TMUs | 624 | 288 |

| ROPs | 192 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 156 | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | 624 | 288 |

| Pixel Rate | 466.6 GPixel/s | 164.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,516.3 GTexel/s | 492.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 97.04 TFLOPS | 31.52 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 97.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 150 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | No outputs |

| Length | 304 mm | 267 mm |

| Height | 137 mm | 112 mm |

| Width | 40 mm | Not specified |

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

| Release Date | 2025-07-13 | 2021-04-11 |

| Predecessor | Workstation Ada | Tesla Turing |

| Successor | None | Server Ada |

| Launch MSRP | 8,565 USD | Not specified |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 195,964 | 151,963 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 98th | 97th |