NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 287,237, while the NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230. The RTX 6000 Ada sits in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the A10M is in the 96th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the single available head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 6000 Ada scores 311,629 against the A10M's 135,230, a 130.4% advantage. That is the only direct benchmark where both cards have recorded scores.

Q: What kind of memory capacity does each card offer?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada Generation ships with 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, providing 500.2 GB/s.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The RTX 6000 Ada was released on 2022-12-02 and its predecessor is Workstation Ampere, while the A10M's predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada.

Q: What is the power connector requirement for each?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada uses a single 16-pin connector with a suggested 700 W power supply. The A10M uses an 8-pin EPS connector with a suggested 450 W power supply.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They also both use a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two cleanly along a single axis: compute throughput versus physical integration.

The RTX 6000 Ada Generation wins the only benchmark where both have scores, and it wins by a wide margin. Its OpenCL result of 311,629 is more than double the A10M's 135,230. It also carries a substantially larger memory pool (48 GB versus 20 GB), higher bandwidth (960.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s), and a much higher FP32 compute rating (91.06 TFLOPS versus 23.44 TFLOPS). For tasks that scale with raw shader throughput, texture fill, or memory bandwidth, the RTX 6000 Ada is clearly the dominant part.

The A10M, however, has its own territory. It is a single-slot card with a 150 W TDP, while the RTX 6000 Ada is dual-slot at 300 W. The A10M also has no display outputs, which points to a headless server role. Its smaller footprint and lower power draw make it the easier card to fit into dense server chassis where the RTX 6000 Ada's dual-slot width and 16-pin connector would complicate installation. The A10M's suggested 450 W power supply requirement versus 700 W for the RTX 6000 Ada also lowers the infrastructure bar.

Neither card wins on production status: both are end-of-life. The A10M's nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (average score 135,218, 0% delta), AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, -0.1%), AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, -0.4%), and AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, -0.9%). That cluster shows the A10M is essentially at parity with its immediate competitors. The RTX 6000 Ada, by contrast, sits 14.4% above the NVIDIA L20 (251,147) and 1.1% above the NVIDIA L40 (284,111), while trailing the NVIDIA L40S by 2.9% (295,763) and the AMD Instinct MI300X by 9.7% (317,994). The RTX 6000 Ada is positioned near the top of a much faster class of cards.

In short, the RTX 6000 Ada wins on absolute performance and memory capacity; the A10M wins on slot efficiency of physical design and lower system power demands.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures built at different foundries. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation uses the AD102 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 5 nm. The A10M uses the GA102 chip on the Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung at 8 nm. The transistor counts reflect the process gap: the RTX 6000 Ada packs 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, for a transistor density of 125.3 million per mm². The A10M has 28,300 million transistors on a larger 628 mm² die, giving a density of just 45.1 million per mm². The Ada chip crams more than twice the transistors into a slightly smaller die, a direct result of the denser 5 nm process.

Core counts follow the same pattern. The RTX 6000 Ada has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 142 RT cores, and 568 tensor cores. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The Ada part more than doubles the shader count and RT core count, and nearly triples the TMU count. The tensor core ratio is also about 2.5 to 1.

Clock behavior differs too. The RTX 6000 Ada has a lower base clock of 915 MHz but a much higher boost clock of 2505 MHz. The A10M starts higher at 975 MHz but only boosts to 1635 MHz. The Ada card therefore relies on a wide, high-frequency design to reach its performance targets, while the A10M is a more modestly clocked part.

Memory architecture is another dividing line. The RTX 6000 Ada uses 48 GB of GDDR6 at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) across a 384-bit bus. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) across a 320-bit bus. The resulting bandwidth gap is 960.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s, nearly a 2x difference. Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification differences are in compute resources and memory. Shading units: 18,176 on the RTX 6000 Ada versus 7,168 on the A10M. TMUs: 568 versus 224. ROPs: 192 versus 80. RT cores: 142 versus 56. Tensor cores: 568 versus 224. FP32 compute is rated at 91.06 TFLOPS for the Ada card versus 23.44 TFLOPS for the A10M, and FP16 is identical to FP32 on both (1:1 ratio). Pixel rate is 481.0 GPixel/s versus 130.8 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 1,422.8 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s.

Memory: the RTX 6000 Ada has 48 GB, the A10M has 20 GB. Bus width: 384 bit versus 320 bit. Bandwidth: 960.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s. Memory clock: 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) versus 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective).

Physical and power specifications also differ. The RTX 6000 Ada is dual-slot with a 300 W TDP, a single 16-pin connector, and a suggested 700 W power supply. The A10M is single-slot with a 150 W TDP, an 8-pin EPS connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply. The RTX 6000 Ada has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the A10M has no display outputs. Both are 267 mm long and 112 mm high, and both use PCIe 4.0 x16.

The RTX 6000 Ada has a launch MSRP of 6,799 USD. The A10M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is exactly one head-to-head benchmark in the database: Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 311,629, and the NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230. That is a delta of 130.4% in favor of the Ada card, meaning the RTX 6000 Ada delivers more than twice the OpenCL score of the A10M. The win count is 1 for the Ada card and 0 for the A10M.

This single result aligns with the specification gap. The RTX 6000 Ada has 91.06 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 23.44 TFLOPS, which is roughly a 3.9x raw compute advantage. Its memory bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s is a 1.9x advantage. The OpenCL delta of 130.4% sits between those two ratios, suggesting the workload is partly compute-bound and partly memory-bound. The Ada card's higher boost clock (2505 MHz versus 1635 MHz) also contributes to the result, as does its larger ROP and TMU counts.

The nearest rivals for each card put the result in context. The RTX 6000 Ada's average score of 287,237 is 1.1% above the NVIDIA L40 (284,111), 2.9% below the NVIDIA L40S (295,763), 9.7% below the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994), and 14.4% above the NVIDIA L20 (251,147). The A10M's average of 135,230 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, 0% delta), 0.1% below the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396), 0.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774), and 0.9% below the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472). The A10M is a mid-pack workstation card; the RTX 6000 Ada is a top-tier compute card.

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation is for workloads that need maximum compute density and large memory capacity. Its 48 GB frame buffer, 960.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 91.06 TFLOPS FP32 make it the obvious choice for rendering, simulation, or AI inference where the model or scene exceeds what a 20 GB card can hold. Its 99th percentile standing and OpenCL score of 311,629, which is 130.4% above the A10M, confirm that it is in a different performance class. The 300 W TDP and dual-slot width are acceptable trade-offs for that capability, and the 4x DisplayPort outputs mean it can drive displays directly. Its launch MSRP is 6,799 USD.

The NVIDIA A10M, by contrast, is built for server racks where space and power draw are the binding constraints. At 150 W TDP in a single slot with no display outputs and a suggested 450 W power supply, it fits into environments where the RTX 6000 Ada's 300 W dual-slot design and 16-pin connector would not work. Its 96th percentile score of 135,230 places it at parity with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (0% delta) and within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon PRO V620, so it does not embarrass itself against its direct peers. But with 20 GB of memory and 23.44 TFLOPS FP32, it is a mid-range compute card, not a flagship.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the RTX 6000 Ada Generation if the job is large-scale compute and graphics with room for a dual-slot card. Choose the A10M if the job is compact, power-limited server deployment where a single-slot card and lower system power requirements are more important than raw throughput. There is no benchmark in the database where the A10M beats the RTX 6000 Ada, so the decision rests entirely on physical and power constraints rather than measured performance.