NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The benchmark data positions the NVIDIA RTX A2000 as the clear performance leader over the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, despite the latter’s vastly larger memory pool. In the two shared benchmark tests, the RTX A2000 wins decisively, with an average benchmark score of 46043 against the Quadro’s 43262 — a 6.4% overall advantage. However, the Quadro M6000 24 GB retains a distinct niche for memory-intensive workloads, where its 24 GB capacity and higher memory bandwidth provide capabilities the RTX A2000 cannot match.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX A2000 dominates both direct comparisons available in the data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67695 against the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40098, a massive 68.8% advantage. This result reflects the architectural gulf between the two generations; the Ampere-based card delivers nearly double the compute throughput in this synthetic workload. The RTX A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 performance, combined with 3328 shading units, clearly outpaces the Maxwell card’s 6.844 TFLOPS and 3072 shading units.

The Vulkan result tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The RTX A2000 posts 69089 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 46425 by 48.8%. This 22664-point gap underscores that the RTX A2000 not only excels in compute-oriented APIs but also in modern graphics APIs. The Quadro’s DirectX 12 (12_1) support and lack of dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores place it at a fundamental disadvantage in any workload leveraging contemporary rendering features.

Looking at overall standing, the RTX A2000’s average benchmark score of 46043 places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 43262 lands in the 83rd percentile. The RTX A2000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45972, 0.2% higher) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46601, 1.2% lower), showing it sits in a competitive mid-range bracket. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, by contrast, is bracketed by the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43268, 0% delta) and the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43223, 0.1% lower), indicating its performance aligns with modern entry-level desktop parts.

Notably, the RTX A2000 also wins the only 3DMark test in the dataset, scoring 1345 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 — a test the Quadro M6000 24 GB did not run. This absence itself is telling; the Maxwell architecture’s DirectX 12_1 feature level may preclude or hamper such modern benchmarks. Across the two head-to-head tests, the RTX A2000 wins both, giving it a 2–0 record in direct comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on Samsung’s 8 nm process, packing 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Quadro M6000 24 GB, in contrast, uses the GM200 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 601 mm² die — a density of just 13.3M per mm². The smaller, denser Ampere design explains much of the RTX A2000’s efficiency advantage, as it delivers higher performance at a fraction of the power draw.

Clock speeds reveal a counterintuitive split. The Quadro M6000 24 GB runs at a 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost, significantly higher than the RTX A2000’s 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Yet the RTX A2000 still wins on throughput due to its superior architecture and higher boost clock. The memory clocks differ similarly: the RTX A2000 uses 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the Quadro uses 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) GDDR5. The newer GDDR6 standard allows the RTX A2000’s 192-bit bus to achieve 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro’s 384-bit bus reaches 317.4 GB/s.

Feature support marks the starkest generational divide. The RTX A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads — capabilities entirely absent from the Quadro M6000 24 GB, which lists no RT or tensor cores. The RTX A2000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) with the same Vulkan 1.4 support. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and share the same dual-slot form factor, but the RTX A2000 draws just 70 W TDP with no power connectors, versus the Quadro’s 250 W TDP requiring a single 8-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data makes a straightforward case: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior overall GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 68.8% and 48.8%, achieves a higher average benchmark score, and supports modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores that the Quadro M6000 24 GB simply lacks. For any workload involving current graphics APIs, compute tasks, or AI acceleration, the RTX A2000 is the rational choice — despite its smaller 6 GB memory capacity and lower 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB’s sole advantage lies in memory capacity and raw bandwidth. Its 24 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is four times larger than the RTX A2000’s 6 GB, and its 317.4 GB/s bandwidth edges out the RTX A2000’s 288.0 GB/s. For professionals working with datasets or scenes that exceed 6 GB, the Quadro remains functional where the RTX A2000 would fail outright. However, this is a narrow use case; the Quadro’s 250 W TDP, 600 W suggested PSU, and PCIe 3.0 interface mark it as a product of an earlier era.

Given the RTX A2000’s 70 W TDP, PCIe 4.0 interface, and 85th percentile standing, it is the better choice for most buyers. The Quadro M6000 24 GB, with its 83rd percentile ranking and reliance on older standards, should only be considered when the 24 GB capacity is an absolute requirement. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX A2000 uses an 8 nm Ampere chip (GA106) with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die; the Quadro M6000 24 GB uses a 28 nm Maxwell 2.0 chip (GM200) with 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die. Memory differs fundamentally: the RTX A2000 has 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro has 24 GB GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds favor the Quadro at 988 MHz base / 1114 MHz boost versus the RTX A2000’s 562 MHz / 1200 MHz, but the RTX A2000’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) against the Quadro’s 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps).

Compute resources: the RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 26 RT cores, and 104 tensor cores; the Quadro has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and no RT or tensor cores. Pixel and texture rates favor the Quadro at 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s versus the RTX A2000’s 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s, but FP32 throughput favors the RTX A2000 at 7.987 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 also supports FP16 at 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro does not list. Power and interface: the RTX A2000 draws 70 W with no connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro draws 250 W with one 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RTX A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, the Quadro PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: the RTX A2000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions: the RTX A2000 is 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high; the Quadro is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high. Launch MSRP: the RTX A2000 launched at 449 USD, the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 4,999 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX A2000 leads with 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 6.844 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 also offers 7.987 TFLOPS FP16, a feature the Quadro does not list.

Q: Can the Quadro M6000 24 GB handle ray tracing workloads?

A: No. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX A2000 includes 26 RT cores. The RTX A2000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How much faster is the RTX A2000 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 67695 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 68.8% higher than the Quadro M6000 24 GB’s 40098.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M6000 24 GB has higher bandwidth at 317.4 GB/s, compared to the RTX A2000’s 288.0 GB/s. The Quadro also has 24 GB of memory versus the RTX A2000’s 6 GB.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has a 250 W TDP, requires one 8-pin connector, and needs a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: How do their overall benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46043, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 43262, placing it in the 83rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins in every compute and modern graphics scenario. Its 68.8% OpenCL lead and 48.8% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute, AI inference (thanks to 104 tensor cores), and any application leveraging DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The RTX A2000’s 70 W TDP also makes it suitable for compact systems or multi-GPU configurations where power and cooling are constrained. Its PCIe 4.0 interface provides double the bandwidth of the Quadro’s PCIe 3.0, benefiting data transfer-heavy workflows. The 85th percentile ranking confirms it competes favorably against much newer and larger GPUs.

The Quadro M6000 24 GB wins exclusively on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 24 GB of GDDR5 and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, it can hold datasets four times larger than the RTX A2000’s 6 GB frame buffer. For workloads like large-scale 3D rendering, massive scientific visualizations, or machine learning inference on models exceeding 6 GB, the Quadro remains viable where the RTX A2000 runs out of memory. Its higher pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.9 GTexel/s) also give it an edge in pure rasterization throughput at very high resolutions, though this advantage is offset by the lack of modern feature support. The 83rd percentile ranking shows it still performs respectably, but only in scenarios where its memory capacity is the deciding factor. For all other use cases, the RTX A2000’s benchmark victories and architectural advantages make it the definitive winner.