NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

# NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000

The NVIDIA A10M and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 are both end-of-life workstation/server GPUs, but they represent two distinct generations of NVIDIA architecture. The A10M is built on the Ampere architecture with a GA102 chip, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the older Turing architecture with a TU102 chip. In the available OpenCL benchmark, the A10M delivers a score of 135,230, which is 82.3% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. This places the A10M at the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 sits at the 94th percentile, meaning the A10M's performance advantage is substantial enough to push it further up the overall ranking.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A10M has an average benchmark score of 135,230, compared to the Quadro RTX 6000's average of 101,872. The A10M's average is derived from its single OpenCL result, while the Quadro RTX 6000's average combines its OpenCL score of 74,179 and its Vulkan score of 129,564.

Q: How does the A10M's memory configuration compare to the Quadro RTX 6000?

A: The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000 has both more memory and higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The A10M has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W power supply, using a single 8-pin EPS connector. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a TDP of 260 W, needs a 600 W power supply, and uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The A10M, built on Samsung's 8 nm process, achieves a transistor density of 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 6000, using TSMC's 12 nm process, has a density of 24.7 million per square millimeter.

Q: Does either card support display outputs?

A: The A10M has no display outputs, making it a compute-only card. The Quadro RTX 6000 includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs, so it can drive displays directly.

Q: What is the release date and MSRP for the Quadro RTX 6000?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 was released on August 12, 2018, with a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD. The A10M's release date and launch MSRP are not listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural divide is between Ampere and Turing. The A10M uses the GA102 chip fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on TSMC's 12 nm process, with 18,600 million transistors on a larger 754 mm² die. This means the A10M crams significantly more transistors into a smaller area, achieving a density of 45.1 million transistors per mm² versus 24.7 million for the Quadro RTX 6000.

The A10M's Ampere architecture brings a different compute layout: 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. It also has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, has fewer shading units (4,608) but more TMUs (288) and ROPs (96). It carries 72 RT cores and a much higher count of 576 tensor cores. The FP32 throughput tells a clear story: the A10M hits 23.44 TFLOPS, while the Quadro RTX 6000 manages 16.31 TFLOPS. However, in FP16, the Quadro RTX 6000 pulls ahead with 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Memory clocks differ as well. The A10M runs its GDDR6 at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The A10M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the Quadro RTX 6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. The A10M is a single-slot card with no display outputs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is dual-slot with full display connectivity. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The A10M wins decisively in raw compute workloads that favor FP32 throughput. Its 23.44 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is 43.7% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 16.31 TFLOPS. This translates directly to the OpenCL benchmark, where the A10M scores 135,230 versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. For tasks like rendering, simulation, or AI inference that rely on single-precision math, the A10M is the stronger choice.

The Quadro RTX 6000 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 24 GB of VRAM on a 384-bit bus, it provides 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 34.3% more than the A10M's 500.2 GB/s. This makes the Quadro RTX 6000 better suited for workloads with very large datasets that exceed 20 GB, or those that are highly memory-bandwidth-bound. Its 72 RT cores versus the A10M's 56 also suggest a potential advantage in ray-traced rendering, though no ray-tracing benchmark is available in the data.

The Quadro RTX 6000 also has a notable edge in FP16 compute, delivering 32.62 TFLOPS versus the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS. This matters for mixed-precision workloads, although the A10M's tensor cores may compensate in some AI tasks. Additionally, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the only one of the two with display outputs, making it viable for workstation use where driving monitors is required.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across almost every major specification. The process node is 8 nm for the A10M versus 12 nm for the Quadro RTX 6000, with transistor counts of 28,300 million versus 18,600 million and die sizes of 628 mm² versus 754 mm². The A10M's base clock is 975 MHz with a boost of 1635 MHz, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has a higher base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz.

Memory configurations diverge: 20 GB on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth for the A10M, versus 24 GB on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s for the Quadro RTX 6000. The memory clock is 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) for the A10M and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Compute unit counts are starkly different. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 130.8 GPixel/s for the A10M versus 169.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro RTX 6000, and texture rate is 366.2 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs also differ: TDP is 150 W for the A10M versus 260 W for the Quadro RTX 6000. The A10M is single-slot with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The Quadro RTX 6000 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 600 W PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A10M and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro RTX 6000. Display outputs are absent on the A10M, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. Dimensions are nearly identical, with both at 267 mm length and 112 mm versus 111 mm height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide. The A10M scores 135,230, while the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 74,179. That is an 82.3% advantage for the A10M. To put this in context, the A10M's nearest rival in its own benchmark pool is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1% delta). The A10M is essentially tied with those cards, while being far ahead of the Quadro RTX 6000.

The Quadro RTX 6000 does have a much stronger showing in its Vulkan benchmark, scoring 129,564. That result is 74.7% higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting that the card is far more competitive in Vulkan-based workloads. However, since there is no Vulkan result for the A10M, a direct comparison is impossible. The Quadro RTX 6000's average benchmark score of 101,872 reflects this Vulkan strength, but even that average is 24.7% below the A10M's single OpenCL score.

Looking at the rival context, the Quadro RTX 6000 sits between the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750, -4.6% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487, +4.5% delta) in its average score. The A10M, by contrast, is competitive with the top of its class, trading blows with the RTX 4000 Ada Generation and Radeon PRO W6800. The performance gap between the two cards is not marginal; it is a generational leap in compute capability.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear case: the NVIDIA A10M is the superior choice for raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 135,230 is 82.3% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179, and its FP32 throughput of 23.44 TFLOPS outstrips the older card's 16.31 TFLOPS by a significant margin. The A10M also achieves this with a lower TDP of 150 W versus 260 W, meaning it delivers more performance per watt. For compute-heavy workloads like scientific simulation, AI inference, or GPU-accelerated rendering that rely on OpenCL or FP32 math, the A10M is the obvious pick.

The Quadro RTX 6000, however, retains advantages in specific areas. Its 24 GB of VRAM and 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth make it better suited for datasets that exceed 20 GB or tasks that are heavily memory-bound. Its higher count of RT cores (72 versus 56) and FP16 throughput (32.62 TFLOPS versus 23.44 TFLOPS) could benefit certain ray-tracing or mixed-precision workloads. The presence of display outputs also makes it a more flexible option for a workstation that needs to drive monitors directly.

Who should pick which? If your priority is maximum compute throughput in a single-slot, low-power package, and you do not need display outputs, the A10M is the clear winner based on the benchmark data. If you need more memory capacity, higher memory bandwidth, display connectivity, or you are working in Vulkan-based applications where the Quadro RTX 6000 shows competitive performance (129,564 in Vulkan), the older card still has a role. The A10M's 96th percentile ranking versus the Quadro RTX 6000's 94th percentile underscores that the A10M is the higher-performing GPU overall, but the Quadro RTX 6000 remains relevant for memory-intensive and display-centric use cases.