NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two workstation cards, with the NVIDIA RTX A1000 taking both head-to-head victories. The A1000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 52078 against the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40098, a 23% margin. It also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 49574 versus 46425, a 6.4% advantage. The Quadro M6000 24 GB records zero wins in the direct comparison.

However, the aggregate picture is more nuanced. The Quadro M6000 24 GB holds an average benchmark score of 43262 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RTX A1000’s average benchmark score is 34207, which places it in the 79th percentile. This discrepancy arises because the A1000’s average is dragged down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 969, a test the Quadro M6000 24 GB does not have recorded. The two Geekbench tests where they overlap show the A1000 ahead, but the broader database average favors the older Maxwell card.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the RTX A1000 is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads and Vulkan rendering tasks. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has a higher overall percentile ranking and a larger memory pool, which matters for datasets that exceed 8 GB. The RTX A1000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, with an average score of 34154 and a delta of 0.2%, and the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34355 with a delta of -0.4%. The Quadro M6000 24 GB sits near the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223, delta 0.1%) and the RTX 4090 Mobile (43667, delta -0.9%).

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, with an average benchmark score of 43262 compared to the NVIDIA RTX A1000’s 34207. The Quadro also ranks higher in the database, at the 83rd percentile versus the A1000’s 79th.

Q: Does the RTX A1000 win any benchmark tests against the Quadro M6000 24 GB?

A: Yes, the RTX A1000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. It scores 52078 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 40098 for the Quadro, and 49574 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 46425.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro’s bandwidth is 317.4 GB/s, while the A1000’s is 192.0 GB/s.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested power supply, and uses a dual-slot design with one 8-pin power connector. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, requires a 250 W suggested power supply, is a single-slot card, and needs no external power connectors.

Q: Which card is currently in production?

A: The RTX A1000 is marked as Active in the database, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB is End-of-life. The Quadro was released in March 2016, and the RTX A1000 was released in April 2024.

Q: Are there any architectural features unique to one card?

A: The RTX A1000 includes 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores, which the Quadro M6000 24 GB lacks entirely. The A1000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win in the direct comparison belongs to the RTX A1000 in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The A1000 posts 52078 points, which is 23% higher than the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40098. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload, and it reflects the A1000’s newer architecture and its dedicated tensor cores, which can accelerate certain OpenCL operations. The Quadro’s raw FP32 throughput of 6.844 TFLOPS is only slightly higher than the A1000’s 6.737 TFLOPS, yet the A1000 still wins decisively, indicating that architectural efficiency matters more than peak theoretical throughput in this test.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a closer contest. The RTX A1000 scores 49574, beating the Quadro’s 46425 by 6.4%. This narrower margin suggests that the Vulkan driver and hardware scheduling in the Ampere architecture provide a measurable but not overwhelming benefit over Maxwell 2.0. The Quadro’s higher memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s) and larger frame buffer may help in some Vulkan scenes, but the A1000’s newer shading units and higher boost clock (1462 MHz versus 1114 MHz) carry the day.

The RTX A1000 also has a third recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where it scores 969. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has no result for this test in the database, so a direct comparison is impossible. However, this low score relative to the A1000’s other results explains why its average benchmark score is much lower than the Quadro’s, despite winning both shared tests. When looking at the head-to-head table, the A1000 wins 2 tests and the Quadro wins 0. The delta percentages are -23% for OpenCL and -6.4% for Vulkan, both favoring the A1000.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification line except for manufacturer (both NVIDIA), OpenGL support (both 4.6), and Vulkan support (both 1.4). The process nodes are generations apart: the Quadro M6000 24 GB uses a 28 nm TSMC process, while the RTX A1000 uses an 8 nm Samsung process. Transistor counts are similar (8,000 million for the Quadro, 8,700 million for the A1000), but the die sizes differ dramatically. The Quadro’s GM200 chip measures 601 mm², while the A1000’s GA107 is just 200 mm². This produces transistor densities of 13.3 million per mm² for the Quadro and 43.5 million per mm² for the A1000.

Clock speeds show a different trade-off. The Quadro has a higher base clock at 988 MHz versus 727 MHz, but the A1000 has a much higher boost clock at 1462 MHz versus 1114 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the Quadro running at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) and the A1000 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The memory subsystems are entirely different: 24 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus versus 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the Quadro at 317.4 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

The compute units also diverge. The Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 46.78 GPixel/s for the A1000, and texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is nearly identical (6.844 TFLOPS versus 6.737 TFLOPS), but the A1000 adds FP16 support at 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro does not record. The A1000 also has 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores, which the Quadro lacks.

Power and physical specifications are starkly different. The Quadro is a 250 W dual-slot card requiring one 8-pin connector and a 600 W power supply. The A1000 is a 50 W single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Dimensions reflect this: the Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the A1000 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall. The bus interface differs as well, with the Quadro using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the A1000 using PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A1000.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro M6000 24 GB is built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM200 chip, part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. The RTX A1000 uses Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, from the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. These are separated by multiple architectural generations, and the database records the Quadro’s predecessor as Quadro Kepler and its successor as Quadro Pascal. The A1000’s predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada.

The most significant architectural differences are the RT cores and tensor cores. The RTX A1000 includes 18 RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and 72 tensor cores for AI and deep learning workloads. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has neither, meaning it must handle these tasks through general-purpose shader code if at all. This explains the A1000’s superior OpenCL score despite nearly identical FP32 throughput.

DirectX support also differs. The A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and DirectX Raytracing. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which lacks some of these newer features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those APIs are not differentiating factors.

The manufacturing process marks a major architectural shift. The Quadro’s 28 nm TSMC process with a 601 mm² die is characteristic of the high-end Maxwell era, where large dies were needed to deliver performance. The A1000’s 8 nm Samsung process with a 200 mm² die shows how node shrinks enabled far greater transistor density (43.5M per mm² versus 13.3M per mm²) in a much smaller package. This density allows the A1000 to include dedicated hardware like RT and tensor cores while consuming only 50 W, one-fifth of the Quadro’s 250 W TDP.

The memory architecture reflects different design priorities. The Quadro’s 24 GB GDDR5 configuration with a 384-bit bus provides massive capacity and bandwidth for large frame buffers, typical of high-end visualization work. The A1000’s 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus is more modest, but its 12 Gbps effective speed and PCIe 4.0 interface compensate with higher per-pin efficiency. The A1000’s display outputs use DisplayPort 1.4a, which supports higher resolutions and refresh rates than the Quadro’s DisplayPort 1.2. The production status difference (active versus end-of-life) and the release dates (2024 versus 2016) further underscore that these are products from different eras, with the A1000 representing a modern, power-efficient design and the Quadro representing a legacy high-capacity solution.