NVIDIA Quadro GV100 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA RTX A2000 and the NVIDIA Quadro GV100, and in both cases the Quadro GV100 delivers a decisive victory. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Quadro GV100 scoring 150,004 against the RTX A2000's 67,695, a delta of -54.9% for the RTX A2000. That is not a marginal gap; the Quadro GV100 more than doubles the RTX A2000's compute throughput in this API. The Geekbench Vulkan result follows the same pattern: the Quadro GV100 scores 139,526 while the RTX A2000 manages 69,089, a -50.5% delta. Across both recorded head-to-head tests, the Quadro GV100 wins 2 out of 2, with the RTX A2000 registering zero wins.

These results align with the broader database averages. The RTX A2000 holds an average benchmark score of 46,043 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro GV100 averages 35,520. That is an unusual inversion: the Quadro GV100 wins the direct head-to-head comparisons decisively, yet its overall average is dragged down by other tests in its suite. The Quadro GV100's PassMark DirectX scores are notably low (140 in DirectX 10, 168 in DirectX 11, 84 in DirectX 12, 207 in DirectX 9), which pulls its aggregate down. The RTX A2000, by contrast, has no such low-scoring legacy tests in its record. When interpreting the head-to-head data, the Geekbench results are the cleanest apples-to-apples comparison, and they favor the Quadro GV100 by a wide margin.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story at the margins. The RTX A2000 sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro GV100 ranks at the 80th percentile. Despite losing both direct matchups, the RTX A2000's higher percentile reflects its consistency across a broader set of workloads. The Quadro GV100's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (average score 35,435, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA T1000 (average score 36,289, delta -2.1%), which shows that its aggregate performance clusters with mobile and entry-level workstation parts. The RTX A2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (average score 45,972, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (average score 46,601, delta -1.2%), placing it in a higher overall performance tier despite the head-to-head losses.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Quadro GV100 is the superior compute engine in raw throughput, while the RTX A2000 offers a more balanced profile across the database's full test suite. For users whose workloads are dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro GV100 is the unambiguous choice. Its 54.9% lead in OpenCL and 50.5% lead in Vulkan over the RTX A2000 are massive margins that no other recorded metric offsets. The Quadro GV100's 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth and 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance are the underlying hardware advantages that explain these results.

However, the RTX A2000 should not be dismissed. Its 85th percentile ranking versus the Quadro GV100's 80th percentile indicates that, across the entire benchmark database, the RTX A2000 performs more consistently relative to all other GPUs. The RTX A2000 also brings modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro GV100's DirectX 12 (12_1). For applications that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features, such as mesh shaders or variable rate shading, the RTX A2000 is the only one of the two that can run them. The Quadro GV100's PassMark DirectX scores are also poor (84 in DirectX 12, for example), suggesting that its architectural strengths do not translate to that API.

The practical verdict is workload-dependent. If the task is GPU compute through OpenCL or Vulkan, with large datasets that benefit from 32 GB of memory, the Quadro GV100 is the data-backed winner. If the task involves modern DirectX 12 workloads, or if the user needs a card that performs well across a wide variety of benchmarks without the Quadro GV100's low DirectX outliers, the RTX A2000 is the safer pick. The Quadro GV100's launch MSRP is 8,999 USD, while the RTX A2000's launch MSRP is 449 USD, but the benchmark data shows that price does not directly translate to performance across all tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and fabrication nodes. The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Quadro GV100 uses the GV100 chip on Volta architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 21,100 million transistors on a much larger 815 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 25.9M per mm². The Quadro GV100 is the physically larger and more complex chip, but the RTX A2000's newer process node allows for higher density.

The RTX A2000 includes hardware ray tracing cores (26 of them) and 104 tensor cores. The Quadro GV100 has no ray tracing cores at all, though it does have 640 tensor cores, which is more than six times the RTX A2000's count. The Quadro GV100's tensor core advantage is significant for workloads that use tensor operations, but the lack of RT cores means it cannot accelerate ray-traced rendering. The RTX A2000's Ampere architecture also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes ray tracing and other modern features, while the Quadro GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

FP16 compute differs fundamentally between the two. The RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning there is no dedicated FP16 boost. The Quadro GV100 delivers 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles its FP32 throughput when running FP16 workloads. This makes the Quadro GV100 exceptionally strong for FP16 compute tasks, which is consistent with its Volta architecture's design focus on deep learning and scientific computing. The RTX A2000's FP16 performance is identical to its FP32, which simplifies its execution model but limits its FP16 throughput relative to the Quadro GV100.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystems are radically different. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. That is more than five times the memory capacity and three times the bandwidth. The Quadro GV100's memory clock is 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective), while the RTX A2000's memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The Quadro GV100 compensates for its lower clock speed with a vastly wider bus.

Compute resources also diverge. The Quadro GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro GV100 leads in every category, which explains its higher pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s). FP32 performance follows suit: 16.66 TFLOPS for the Quadro GV100 versus 7.987 TFLOPS for the RTX A2000.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro GV100 has a 250 W TDP, requires one 8-pin power connector, and needs a suggested PSU of 600 W. The RTX A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high, while the Quadro GV100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. Both are dual-slot cards. The RTX A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro GV100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the RTX A2000 versus four full-size DisplayPort 1.4a on the Quadro GV100. The RTX A2000 was released on 2021-08-09, while the Quadro GV100 came earlier on 2018-03-26. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins both recorded tests. It scores 150,004 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 67,695 for the RTX A2000, and 139,526 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 69,089.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A2000 trails by 54.9% in Geekbench OpenCL, meaning the Quadro GV100 delivers more than double the score.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 have any advantage in the database rankings?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro GV100 is at the 80th percentile. The RTX A2000 also has a higher average benchmark score at 46,043 versus 35,520.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The RTX A2000 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the RTX A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Quadro GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What are the FP16 capabilities of each card?

A: The RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The Quadro GV100 delivers 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro GV100 wins in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are approximately double those of the RTX A2000, and its FP32 performance (16.66 TFLOPS) and FP16 performance (33.32 TFLOPS) are far ahead. The 32 GB HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth makes it the clear choice for large datasets that exceed the RTX A2000's 6 GB capacity. The Quadro GV100's 640 tensor cores also give it an edge in tensor-heavy workloads, assuming the software can use them. Its pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s) are both more than four times higher than the RTX A2000's, which benefits fill-rate-bound rendering tasks.

The RTX A2000 wins in modern API support and consistency. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), enabling ray tracing and other features that the Quadro GV100 cannot accelerate. Its 26 RT cores provide hardware ray tracing capability, which the Quadro GV100 lacks entirely. The RTX A2000's higher percentile ranking (85th versus 80th) and higher average benchmark score (46,043 versus 35,520) indicate that it performs more consistently across the full database. Its low 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it far easier to integrate into compact systems, and its smaller physical dimensions (167 mm versus 267 mm length) fit in more chassis. The RTX A2000 also uses PCIe 4.0, which offers double the bandwidth of the Quadro GV100's PCIe 3.0 interface.

For compute-heavy scientific or deep learning workloads that use OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro GV100 is the data-backed pick. For modern DirectX 12 applications, ray-traced rendering, or any scenario where a balanced, consistent performer with modern features is required, the RTX A2000 is the better choice. The two cards are not direct substitutes; they serve different performance profiles, and the benchmark data clearly separates them.