NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5000 delivers substantially higher compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 27.77 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro M6000 24 GB, a roughly 4x difference. The A5000 also supports FP16 at 27.77 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M6000 lists no FP16 capability.

Q: What are the benchmark score differences between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5000 scores 157,905 against 40,098 for the M6000, a delta of -74.6% from the A5000's perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A5000 scores 137,828 versus 46,425, a delta of -66.3%. The A5000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 24 GB of memory. However, the M6000 uses GDDR5 with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the A5000 uses GDDR6 with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A5000, built on Samsung's 8 nm process, has a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The Quadro M6000, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, has a density of 13.3M per mm². The A5000 packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, versus 8,000 million on a 601 mm² die.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43,262, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A5000 has an average benchmark score of 33,622, placing it in the 78th percentile. Note that the A5000's average includes additional test types not recorded for the M6000.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The M6000 has a TDP of 250 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W and a single 8-pin connector. The A5000 has a TDP of 230 W with a suggested PSU of 550 W, also using a single 8-pin connector. Both are dual-slot cards with identical 267 mm lengths.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras, and the data shows a wide gap in design philosophy. The Quadro M6000 is based on the GM200 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A5000 uses the GA102 chip with Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This process shift alone explains much of the performance delta, as the A5000 fits 28,300 million transistors onto a 628 mm² die, compared to 8,000 million on a 601 mm² die for the M6000. The transistor density jumps from 13.3M per mm² to 45.1M per mm².

The shading engine configuration differs dramatically. The M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The A5000 has 8,192 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This means the A5000 has more than 2.6 times the shader count, while keeping the same ROP count. The A5000 also introduces dedicated hardware absent from the M6000: 64 ray tracing cores and 256 tensor cores. These features enable workloads in ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated tasks that the Maxwell-based card cannot accelerate in hardware.

The memory subsystem also reflects architectural evolution. The M6000 uses GDDR5 running at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), delivering 317.4 GB/s over a 384-bit bus. The A5000 uses GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), delivering 768.0 GB/s over the same 384-bit bus. The bandwidth more than doubles, which matters for large data sets in scientific visualization and machine learning inference.

Clock behavior differs as well. The M6000 has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz. The A5000 runs at 1170 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost. The A5000's higher boost clock, combined with far more execution units, produces pixel rates of 162.7 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s, and texture rates of 433.9 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s.

API support also sets the two apart. The M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A5000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The move to 12_2 enables mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other modern DirectX features. The A5000 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the M6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ too: the M6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the A5000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results are limited to two Geekbench tests, and in both, the RTX A5000 dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A5000 scores 157,905 against the M6000's 40,098. The delta is -74.6%, which reflects the A5000's massive advantage in raw parallel compute. This is consistent with the FP32 throughput difference: 27.77 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count and memory bandwidth will see a roughly 4x improvement on the A5000.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A5000 scores 137,828 against 46,425 for the M6000, a delta of -66.3%. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the A5000's newer architecture with dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware, along with its higher clock speeds, contributes to this advantage. The M6000's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting it handles the Vulkan driver path reasonably well for its era, but it still trails the A5000 by a wide margin.

The A5000 wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The M6000 has no recorded wins. It is importantly the A5000's benchmark suite includes many additional tests not recorded for the M6000, including 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (3,783), Passmark DirectX 9 (251), DirectX 10 (153), DirectX 11 (187), DirectX 12 (87), G2D (1,032), G3D (22,541), and GPU Compute (12,455). These additional tests contribute to the A5000's lower average benchmark score of 33,622 compared to the M6000's 43,262, because the averages are computed over different test sets.

The percentile rankings reflect the different comparison pools. The M6000 sits at the 83rd percentile of all GPUs, while the A5000 sits at the 78th percentile. The M6000's nearest rivals by average score include the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, 0% delta), the Quadro M6000 non-24GB variant (43,301, -0.1%), the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223, 0.1%), and the GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667, -0.9%). The A5000's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB (33,694, -0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, -0.7%), the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (33,951, -1%), and the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, -1.1%). These rival lists illustrate that the M6000's average score lands near modern mid-range GeForce parts, while the A5000's average lands near older and lower-tier cards, despite the A5000's much higher peak compute.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node moves from 28 nm to 8 nm, and the foundry changes from TSMC to Samsung. Transistor count grows from 8,000 million to 28,300 million. Die size grows slightly from 601 mm² to 628 mm², but transistor density improves from 13.3M per mm² to 45.1M per mm².

Clock speeds are higher on the A5000: base clock 1170 MHz versus 988 MHz, boost clock 1695 MHz versus 1114 MHz. Memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). Memory type changes from GDDR5 to GDDR6, while capacity stays at 24 GB and bus width stays at 384 bit. Bandwidth improves from 317.4 GB/s to 768.0 GB/s.

The compute configuration changes substantially. Shading units increase from 3,072 to 8,192. TMUs increase from 192 to 256. ROPs remain at 96. The A5000 adds 64 ray tracing cores and 256 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the M6000. Pixel rate improves from 106.9 GPixel/s to 162.7 GPixel/s. Texture rate improves from 213.9 GTexel/s to 433.9 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput improves from 6.844 TFLOPS to 27.77 TFLOPS. The A5000 also lists FP16 at 27.77 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M6000 lists no FP16 figure.

Power characteristics differ slightly. TDP drops from 250 W to 230 W. Suggested PSU drops from 600 W to 550 W. Both use a single 8-pin connector and dual-slot cooling. Physical dimensions are nearly identical: both are 267 mm long and about 111-112 mm tall.

The bus interface advances from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs change from 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 to 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. API support moves from DirectX 12 (12_1) to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 remaining the same. Release dates are March 2016 for the M6000 and April 2021 for the A5000. The M6000 carries a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD; the A5000 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5000 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and its architectural advantages point to clear use-case strengths. For compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL-based rendering, scientific simulation, and GPU compute tasks, the A5000's 27.77 TFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide roughly a 4x advantage over the M6000. The additional 64 ray tracing cores and 256 tensor cores make the A5000 the only choice for ray-traced rendering workflows and AI inference tasks that can leverage tensor operations. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support also makes it suitable for modern graphics pipelines that rely on mesh shaders and other 12_2 features. PCIe 4.0 support further benefits workloads that transfer large data sets between CPU and GPU.

The Quadro M6000 retains relevance in narrower scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 43,262 is higher than the A5000's 33,622, though this reflects the different test sets recorded for each card. The M6000's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER and RTX 4090 Mobile, which suggests its recorded performance profile aligns with newer mid-range and high-end consumer GPUs in average terms. The M6000's 24 GB of GDDR5 memory and 317.4 GB/s bandwidth remain adequate for traditional rasterization workloads that do not require ray tracing or tensor cores. For legacy software environments that predate DirectX 12 Ultimate, the M6000's Maxwell architecture may offer more mature driver compatibility, though the database contains no specific compatibility metrics.

The A5000 is the stronger choice for any modern workload that can use its additional shader units, ray tracing cores, or tensor cores. The M6000 is the fallback for older OpenGL or DirectX 12_1 pipelines where the newer card's features provide no benefit. In terms of power efficiency, the A5000 delivers far more performance per watt, producing 27.77 TFLOPS within a 230 W TDP, versus 6.844 TFLOPS within a 250 W TDP. The A5000 also requires a smaller suggested PSU at 550 W versus 600 W. For users constrained by power delivery, the A5000 is the more efficient option. For users running legacy code that only exercises Maxwell-era features, the M6000 can still serve, but the data shows no benchmark category where it outperforms the A5000.