NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile and NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the RTX A1000 Mobile wins both head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 47,743 against the Quadro’s 43,262. That’s a 10.4% higher average score, placing the newer mobile chip in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the older workstation card sits at the 83rd percentile. The gap is real, but the story is more nuanced than a simple generational stomping, as each card has distinct strengths in raw throughput, memory capacity, and feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 Mobile posts 48,703 points against the Quadro M6000’s 40,098, a decisive 21.5% margin. This is the clearest win for the Ampere-based mobile part, and it aligns with the architectural advantages of newer shader design and driver optimizations. For context, the A1000’s OpenCL score sits just 1.5% below an AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (48,477), a desktop flagship-class card, while being 2.2% ahead of an AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702) and 2.4% ahead of an Intel Arc A530M (46,614). The Quadro M6000’s 40,098 OpenCL result puts it in a lower tier, though it still performs within range of modern midrange parts.

The Vulkan test is far tighter. The RTX A1000 Mobile scores 46,782, edging out the Quadro M6000’s 46,425 by just 0.8%. That is effectively a statistical tie, and it shows that in API-level workloads where the older card’s massive 384-bit memory bus and 96 ROPs can flex, the Maxwell architecture still holds its own. Notably, the Quadro’s Vulkan score is nearly identical to its OpenCL score, suggesting balanced performance across APIs, whereas the A1000 drops about 4% going from OpenCL to Vulkan. The Quadro M6000’s average score of 43,262 places it within 0.1% of a standard Quadro M6000 (43,301) and 0.1% ahead of an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223), while trailing the RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667) by 0.9%. This indicates that the older card’s Vulkan performance is still competitive with modern GPUs, even if its OpenCL showing lags.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A1000 Mobile is built on the GA107 chip using Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, made on TSMC’s 28 nm node, with 8,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 601 mm² die, giving a density of just 13.3 million per square millimeter. That’s a 3.3x density advantage for the A1000, which is entirely expected from a 20 nm process node shrink.

Feature-wise, the A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is equal beyond the DirectX tier. The A1000 includes 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, enabling hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration—features completely absent from the Maxwell-based Quadro, which has no RT or tensor cores. This is a fundamental architectural split: the A1000 is designed for modern workloads like ray-traced rendering and DLSS-style inference, while the M6000 relies purely on rasterization and compute. The A1000 is also an integrated GPU (IGP) with no dedicated power connectors, whereas the M6000 is a dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The memory interface differs dramatically: the A1000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has significantly higher bandwidth at 317.4 GB/s, thanks to its 384-bit bus and GDDR5 memory clocked at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). The RTX A1000 Mobile manages only 176.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus with a 1375 MHz memory clock (11 Gbps effective). That’s a 1.8x difference in favor of the older card.

Q: Does the RTX A1000 Mobile support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it features 16 dedicated RT cores, a capability the Quadro M6000 lacks entirely, as it has no RT cores or tensor cores. This makes the A1000 suitable for hardware-accelerated ray-traced workloads, while the M6000 cannot perform such tasks.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The Quadro M6000 offers higher raw FP32 throughput at 6.844 TFLOPS, versus the A1000’s 4.669 TFLOPS. However, the A1000 delivers the same 4.669 TFLOPS for FP16 (1:1 ratio), whereas the M6000 has no listed FP16 capability, so the A1000 is more flexible for mixed-precision work.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile has a 60 W TDP, compared to the Quadro M6000’s 250 W. This means the A1000 achieves its benchmark scores at roughly one-quarter the power draw, making it far more efficient per watt, even though the M6000 has higher absolute compute and memory bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The RTX A1000 Mobile was released on March 29, 2022, while the Quadro M6000 launched on March 4, 2016. The A1000’s predecessor is Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW; the M6000’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler and its successor is Quadro Pascal.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M6000 sits at the 83rd percentile. This indicates that the A1000 is slightly better positioned in the overall performance distribution, despite the M6000’s higher memory capacity.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB |

|-------|------------------------|---------------------------|

| Chip | GA107 | GM200 |

| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 630 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1140 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 64 | 192 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 36.48 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 72.96 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.669 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.669 TFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 60 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 in) length, 111 mm (4.4 in) height |

| Release Date | March 29, 2022 | March 4, 2016 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 4,999 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 Mobile wins on OpenCL performance by a 21.5% margin, and it also claims a narrow 0.8% victory in Vulkan. Its strengths are modern features: RT cores and tensor cores enable ray tracing and AI-assisted workloads, while the 8 nm process and 60 W TDP make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory is small but fast, and the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface offers double the per-lane bandwidth of the older PCIe 3.0 standard. For compute tasks that leverage FP16 or mixed precision, the A1000’s 1:1 FP16 rate is a clear advantage, as the M6000 has no FP16 support listed.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB wins on raw capacity and throughput metrics. It has 6x the memory (24 GB vs 4 GB), 1.8x the bandwidth (317.4 GB/s vs 176.0 GB/s), and 1.5x the FP32 compute (6.844 TFLOPS vs 4.669 TFLOPS). Its pixel rate is 2.9x higher (106.9 GPixel/s vs 36.48 GPixel/s) and texture rate is 2.9x higher (213.9 GTexel/s vs 72.96 GTexel/s). This makes it superior for large dataset rendering, high-resolution texture work, and memory-hungry professional applications that cannot fit in 4 GB. The dual-slot form factor with 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also provides more flexible multi-monitor setups than the portable-device-dependent outputs of the A1000.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: choose the RTX A1000 Mobile for modern workloads and efficiency, and the Quadro M6000 24 GB for legacy capacity and raw rasterization throughput. The A1000 wins both benchmark tests, but the margin in Vulkan is negligible at 0.8%, while OpenCL shows a 21.5% gap. If your software relies on OpenCL compute, the A1000 is decisively better. If you need more than 4 GB of VRAM—for large 3D scenes, high-res textures, or multi-GPU memory pooling—the M6000’s 24 GB is an undeniable asset that no benchmark score can offset. The M6000 also offers higher FP32 and pixel/texture rates, which matters for traditional rendering pipelines that don’t use ray tracing or tensor cores. However, the A1000’s RT and tensor support, lower power draw, and newer DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set make it the more future-proof choice. The average benchmark scores (47,743 vs 43,262) favor the A1000 by 10.4%, and its 85th percentile ranking versus the M6000’s 83rd confirms that edge. Neither card is in production, but for a new build, the A1000’s architectural advantages outweigh the M6000’s memory lead unless capacity is the sole priority. For anyone running Vulkan-based workloads, the two are effectively interchangeable in performance, so choose based on memory needs and physical form factor.