NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB represent two very different eras of workstation graphics. One is a massive, power-hungry Maxwell flagship from 2016, while the other is a compact Ampere card from 2021. The database shows a clear generational shift, though the older card retains strengths in memory capacity and raw fill rates. This analysis relies solely on recorded measurements and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The results are decisive: the RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998, while the Quadro M6000 24 GB scores 40,098. That is a 40.2% advantage for the RTX A2000. This is a massive gap, and it reflects the fundamental architectural improvements in Ampere. The RTX A2000 does more work per clock and uses its resources far more efficiently in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the story is different. The Quadro M6000 24 GB has an average score of 43,262, while the RTX A2000 12 GB averages 34,154. The Quadro M6000 is roughly 26.7% higher on average. This discrepancy is because the average includes the Geekbench Vulkan score for the M6000 (46,425), which is a strong result. The RTX A2000 only has the OpenCL result (66,998) and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score (1,309, which is a low absolute number but not comparable across test types).

So the data reveals a split: in the single shared test, the RTX A2000 is far faster. In the overall average, the Quadro M6000 leads, but that is driven by a test where the RTX A2000 has no recorded result. The average is not a head-to-head comparison; it is a database summary. The only true apples-to-apples measurement, Geekbench OpenCL, favors the RTX A2000 by 40.2%.

The Quadro M6000’s percentile ranking versus all GPUs is 83, while the RTX A2000 sits at 79. This places the Quadro M6000 slightly higher in the overall distribution of recorded GPU performance. However, the nearest rivals for the Quadro M6000 include the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (average score 43,223, within 0.1%) and the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (average 43,667, 0.9% higher). The RTX A2000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (average 34,133, 0.1% higher) and the NVIDIA TITAN V (average 34,355, 0.6% higher). These rival comparisons show that the Quadro M6000 is competing with high-end consumer GeForce parts, while the RTX A2000 is competing with older mid-range cards in the aggregate.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro M6000 24 GB uses the GM200 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm TSMC process. The die is 601 mm², and it houses 8,000 million transistors. This is a large, power-hungry design. The RTX A2000 12 GB uses the GA106 chip on the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm Samsung process. The die is much smaller at 276 mm², but it contains 12,000 million transistors. The transistor density is dramatically higher: 13.3 million per mm² for Maxwell versus 43.5 million per mm² for Ampere. This is over three times the density, which explains how a smaller die can pack more transistors.

The RTX A2000 also brings hardware features that the Quadro M6000 does not have. The RTX A2000 has 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The Quadro M6000 has none. This is a hard architectural difference. The Quadro M6000 is a pure rasterization GPU, while the RTX A2000 is a modern accelerator for ray-traced workloads and AI inference. The API support reflects this. The Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RTX A2000 also has a higher shader count: 3,328 shading units versus 3,072. The Quadro M6000 has more texture mapping units (192 versus 104) and more render output units (96 versus 48).

The memory subsystems also differ across generations. The Quadro M6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5 with a 384-bit bus, yielding 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A2000 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 with a smaller 192-bit bus, giving 288.0 GB/s. The bandwidth is only 9.2% lower on the RTX A2000, but its memory capacity is half.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins in compute and modern workloads. Its OpenCL score is 40.2% higher than the Quadro M6000 in the head-to-head test. The FP32 floating-point rating confirms this: the RTX A2000 is rated at 7.987 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M6000 is rated at 6.844 TFLOPS. The RTX A2000 is also the only card with FP16 capability, rated at 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1), which is useful for AI and render workloads that leverage reduced precision. The RTX A2000 also has the dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, which are absent from the Quadro M6000.

The Quadro M6000 wins in memory capacity and fill rate. It has 24 GB of VRAM, which is double the RTX A2000’s 11 GB. This is critical for datasets not fit into 12 GB. The Quadro M6000 also has higher pixel rate: 106.9 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s. The texture rate is also higher: 213.9 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. The Quadro M6000 has more ROPs (96 vs 48) and more TMUs (192 vs 80), which contribute to these fill rate advantages. In pure rasterization throughput at high resolutions, the Maxwell card is stronger.

The power envelope is also a major split. The Quadro M6000 is rated at 250 W max power draw, while the RTX A2000 is rated at just 70 W. That is a 3.5x difference in power consumption. The RTX A2000 does not even require a power connector; it draws all power from the PCIe slot. The Quadro M6000 needs a single 8-pin connector. The suggested power supply for the RTX A2000 is 250 W, versus 600 W for the Quadro M6000.

Specification Differences

The specification differences are substantial. The dimensions are different: the Quadro M6000 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, while the RTX A2000 is much smaller at 167 mm (6.6 inches) length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) height. Both are dual-slot cards.

The process node differs: 28 nm for the Quadro M6000 versus 8 nm for the RTX A2000. The transistor count is different: 8,000 million versus 12,000 million. The die size is different: 601 mm² versus 276 mm². The transistor density is different: 13.2M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

The clock speeds are very different. The Quadro M6000 has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost of 1,114 MHz. The RTX A2000 has a much lower base clock of 562 MHz but a higher boost of 1,200 MHz. The memory clock is also different: the Quadro M6000 uses 1,653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) while the RTX A2000 uses 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The effective memory speed is nearly double on the RTX A2000.

Memory bus width differs (384 bit vs 192 bit), memory type (GDDR5 vs GDDR6), and memory size (24 GB vs 12 GB). The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro M6000, versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX A2000. Display outputs are also different: the Quadro M6000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RTX A2000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX A2000 supports the newer DisplayPort standard.

The FP32 performance is higher on the RTX A2000 (7.987 TFLOPS vs 6.844 TFLOPS). The FP16 performance is only available on the RTX A2000. The RTX A2000 also has ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which the Quadro M6000 lacks. The API support is different: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), though both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX A2000 has higher FP32 performance at 7.987 TFLOPS, compared to 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro M6000. It also has FP16 capability, which the Quadro M6000 does not have.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the RTX A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory. The Quadro M6000 has twice the capacity.

Q: Which card has more rendering cores?

A: The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units, while the Quadro M6000 has 3,072. The RTX A2000 also has 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the Quadro M6000.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro M6000 is rated at 250 W, while the RTX A2000 is rated at 70 W. The RTX A2000 requires no external power connector, while the Quadro M6000 needs a 12-pin connector.

Q: Which card is more compact?

A: The RTX A2000 is a dual-slot card that is 167 mm long and 69 mm high. The Quadro M6000 is also dual-slot but is 267 mm long and 111 mm high.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The Quadro M6000 was released in March 2016, while the RTX A2000 was released in November 2021. The Quadro M6000 is from the Maxwell generation, while the RTX A2000 is from the Ampere generation.

The Verdict

The database shows that the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is the stronger compute card in the only shared test, beating the Quadro M6000 by 40.2% in Geekbench OpenCL. It also offers higher FP32 performance, the addition of ray tracing and tensor cores, and a much lower power draw of 70 W versus 250 W. The RTX A2000 is the better choice for any modern workload that relies on compute, FP16, or RT acceleration.

For those with different needs, the Quadro M6000 still holds specific advantages. Its 24 GB VRAM is double the RTX A2000’s capacity, which is essential for models or scenes that exceed 12 GB. The Quadro M6000 also has a higher pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s vs 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.9 GTexel/s vs 124.8 GTexel/s), making it better for heavy rasterization or framebuffer operations.

The average benchmark score favors the Quadro M6000 (43,262 vs 34,154), but this is influenced by the Vulkan test that the RTX A2000 lacks a result for. In the direct head-to-head, the RTX A2000 is the clear winner. The choice depends on the core need: massive memory capacity and high fill rate versus modern compute, efficiency, and RT support. The RTX A2000 is the more versatile card for today’s professional workloads, while the Quadro M6000 remains a niche pick for memory-hungry tasks.