NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two cards across very different eras of NVIDIA's professional lineup, and the benchmark results reflect that divide clearly. The NVIDIA A10M claims the sole head-to-head victory in the database, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test by a wide margin. The NVIDIA Quadro P6000, meanwhile, has no recorded wins against the A10M in direct comparisons, though it does hold a separate Vulkan result in its own benchmark history.

The A10M is the compute-oriented option. Its single OpenCL score of 135,230 places it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs in the database, which puts it among the top tier of accelerators regardless of era. The Quadro P6000, by contrast, sits at the 90th percentile with an average benchmark score of 69,986 across its OpenCL and Vulkan results. That percentile gap, while only six points, masks a much larger performance chasm in raw compute workloads.

Where the P6000 retains relevance is in display-centric tasks. It offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the A10M has no display outputs at all. Any workstation that needs to drive monitors directly from the card must choose the P6000, as the A10M is purely an accelerator for server environments. The P6000 also carries 24 GB of memory versus 20 GB on the A10M, which gives it a capacity advantage for datasets that fit within its slower memory subsystem.

The A10M wins on compute density, efficiency, and raw throughput. The P6000 wins on memory capacity, display connectivity, and legacy software compatibility. For an analyst looking at the database, the A10M is the clear choice for headless compute nodes, while the P6000 remains a viable option for mixed-use workstations where GPU-accelerated rendering and direct display output are both required.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing nodes and different architectural generations. The A10M uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, built on the Ampere architecture. The P6000 uses the GP102 chip on TSMC's 16 nm process, built on the older Pascal architecture. This node difference is significant: the A10M packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, while the P6000 fits only 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die. The resulting transistor density tells the story, 45.1M per mm² for the A10M versus 25.1M per mm² for the P6000, a near doubling of density that enables the A10M's massive compute advantage.

The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, 80 ROPs, 56 ray tracing cores, and 224 tensor cores. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. The shading unit count alone is nearly double on the A10M, and the addition of dedicated RT and tensor hardware gives it capabilities the Pascal card simply cannot match. DirectX support differs as well: the A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P6000 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those API levels are identical.

Memory architecture also diverges. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s. Despite the wider bus and larger capacity on the P6000, the A10M's faster GDDR6 memory wins on bandwidth. The A10M also runs a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, double the bandwidth of the P6000's PCIe 3.0 x16, which matters for data transfer to and from the host system.

Power and cooling requirements reflect the architectural gulf. The A10M draws 150 W TDP and fits in a single slot with an 8-pin EPS connector, while the P6000 draws 250 W TDP and requires a dual-slot form factor with 1x 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating is 450 W for the A10M and 600 W for the P6000, so the newer card delivers more performance at lower power consumption thanks to its denser process node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two cards: the Geekbench OpenCL, and the A10M wins decisively. The A10M scored 135,230 against the P6000's 66382, a delta of 103.7 percent difference. In practical terms, the A10M is roughly twice as fast in OpenCL compute performance. This near doubling tracks with the FP32 floating-point throughput difference between the two cards: 23.44 TFLOPS for the A10M versus 12.63 TFLOPS for the P6000, though the A10M's advantage in the benchmark is even larger than the raw TFLOPS gap might suggest.

The P6000's best recorded score in any benchmark is 73,590 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is not directly comparable to the A10M's OpenCL result since the A10M has no recorded Vulkan score in the database. That 73,590 result exceeds the A10M's OpenCL number only if one assumes cross-API comparisons hold, but the database treats them separately. What the data shows is that the A10M owns the only head-to-head test between the pair, and it does so by a wide margin.

Looking at the A10M's nearest rivals helps contextualize its position. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation, scores 135,218, just 0 percent different from the A10M's 135,230. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396, 0.1 percent behind the A10M. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135,774, 0.4 percent behind, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136,472, 0.9 percent behind the A10M. The rival cluster is incredibly tight, all within one point of each other. The Quadro P6000, by comparison, has rivals that cluster around its own 69,986 average, from 68,970 on the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 up to 69,870 on the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, with deltas ranging from 0.2 percent below the P6000 to 1.4 percent above it. The A10M's competitive set is far faster, confirming that its performance class sits well above the Pascal flagship.

Specification Differences

The A10M and P6000 differ across nearly every major specification category. The most striking difference is process node: 8 nm Samsung for the A10M versus 16 nm TSMC for the P6000. Transistor count follows suit at 28,300 million versus 11,800 million, and die size at 628 mm² versus 471 mm². Transistor density is 45.1M per mm² on the A10M, compared to 25.1M per mm² on the P6000.

Compute resources differ substantially. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. The A10M delivers 23.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 23.44 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, while the P6000 delivers 12.63 TFLOPS FP32 and just 197.4 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio. The FP16 disparity is enormous: the A10M offers over 100 times the half-precision throughput.

Memory specifications also differ. The A10M has 20 GB GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth and 1563 MHz memory clock (12.5 Gbps effective). The P6000 has 24 GB GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth and 1127 MHz memory clock (9 Gbps effective). Clock speeds for the GPU cores show the A10M at 975 MHz base and 1635 MHz boost, while the P6000 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. The Pascal card has higher clocks, but the Ampere card's architecture and sheer core count more than compensate.

Power and physical specifications diverge: 150 W TDP versus 250 W, single-slot versus dual-slot, 8-pin EPS versus 1x 8-pin, 450 W suggested PSU versus 600 W. The A10M uses PCIe 4.0 x16 while the P6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ completely: none on the A10M, 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the P6000. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards are end-of-life, and both measure 267 mm in length, with the A10M at 112 mm height and the P6000 at 111 mm.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A10M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 135,230 against the Quadro P6000's 66,382, a delta of 103.7 percent.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 have any advantage in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6. However, the A10M has higher memory bandwidth at 500.2 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

Q: Can the A10M drive displays?

A: No, the A10M has no display outputs. The Quadro P6000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it the only option for direct display connection.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare for FP16 workloads?

A: The A10M delivers 23.44 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio, while the P6000 delivers only 197.4 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, over 100 times less half-precision throughput.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The A10M has a 150 W TDP with a suggested 450 W PSU, while the P6000 has a 250 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear generational split. The NVIDIA A10M is the superior compute card by every measurable performance metric in the database. Its OpenCL score of 135,230 is 103.7 percent higher than the P6000's 66,382, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs compared to the P6000's 90th percentile. It delivers more than double the FP32 throughput, over 100 times the FP16 throughput, and adds ray tracing and tensor cores that the Pascal card lacks entirely. It does all of this at 150 W TDP, 100 W less than the P6000, in a single-slot form factor with a PCIe 4.0 interface.

The Quadro P6000 retains one practical advantage: memory capacity and display outputs. Its 24 GB frame buffer exceeds the A10M's 20 GB, and its 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a functional workstation card for direct display. The A10M has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for any role that requires driving monitors.

For servers, headless compute nodes, AI inference, or any workload where raw throughput matters more than memory capacity, the A10M is the obvious choice from the recorded data. For a workstation that needs to output to displays and handle legacy DirectX 12 (12_1) applications, the P6000 remains functional, though its launch MSRP of 5,999 USD reflects a different era of pricing. The performance gap is simply too large for the P6000 to compete with the A10M in compute tasks, and the A10M's lack of display outputs prevents it from replacing the P6000 in display-centric roles. The data supports a dual-card strategy for organizations with mixed workloads, but for pure compute, the A10M wins outright.