NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between these two workstation cards. In the only two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins both, but the margin tells very different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 scores 52078 against the Quadro M6000's 39688, a 23.8% advantage. That is a substantial gap. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A1000 scores 49574 versus 46913, a much narrower 5.4% lead. The older Maxwell card is not embarrassed in Vulkan, but the Ampere card dominates compute workloads.

Looking at the broader database averages, the picture flips. The Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43301, while the RTX A1000 sits at 34207. That is a 26.6% gap in favor of the M6000 when all recorded tests are pooled together, not just the two shared ones. The M6000 also lands in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 79th percentile for the RTX A1000. These are different cards with different strengths, and the aggregate data reflects that.

The RTX A1000's OpenCL win is worth examining closely. A 23.8% margin in OpenCL is not a small difference. It suggests the Ampere architecture's compute pipeline, combined with its tensor cores and newer instruction set, delivers significantly better raw throughput in OpenCL workloads. The Vulkan result is closer, but still favors the newer card. The M6000's Vulkan score of 46913 is respectable; it trails by only 5.4%, which indicates the Maxwell architecture can still hold its own in modern graphics APIs, though it does not win either shared test.

The nearest rival data adds context. The M6000's closest competitor is the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43268, just 0.1% behind, followed by the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43262, also 0.1% off. The RTX 4070 SUPER sits 0.2% behind, and the RTX 4090 Mobile is 0.8% ahead. This clustering shows the M6000 sits in a dense performance neighborhood where tiny margins separate cards. The RTX A1000's nearest rivals are similarly tight: the RTX A2000 12 GB is 0.2% ahead, the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT is 0.2% ahead, the TITAN V is 0.4% ahead, and the RX 480 trails by 0.6%. Both cards are positioned in competitive bands, but the M6000 operates at a higher overall performance level in the database's aggregate scoring.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 wins where modern compute and graphics features matter. Its 23.8% OpenCL advantage over the M6000 points to workloads that leverage compute shaders, OpenCL acceleration, or general GPU compute. The 5.4% Vulkan win reinforces this, though by a smaller margin. The RTX A1000 also brings hardware that the M6000 lacks entirely: 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. Any workload that uses ray tracing or AI acceleration will only run on the RTX A1000. The M6000 has no such hardware. The RTX A1000 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). That matters for modern gaming engines, DXR workloads, or any application that requires the newer feature set.

The M6000 wins on raw aggregate performance and memory bandwidth. Its average benchmark score of 43301 versus 34207 for the RTX A1000 reflects a card that, despite being older, delivers more overall throughput in the database's full suite of tests. The M6000 also has a 384-bit memory bus with 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the RTX A1000's 128-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s. For memory-heavy workloads like large frame buffers, high-resolution texturing, or data visualization, the M6000 has a clear bandwidth advantage. It also has 12 GB of VRAM versus 8 GB, which matters for datasets that exceed the smaller card's capacity.

The pixel and texture rates tell a similar story. The M6000 produces 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s, while the RTX A1000 produces 46.78 GPixel/s and 105.3 GTexel/s. The M6000 is roughly 2.3 times faster in pixel throughput and about 2 times faster in texture throughput. For traditional rasterization workloads, the M6000 is the stronger card. The RTX A1000's FP32 output is 6.737 TFLOPS, nearly identical to the M6000's 6.844 TFLOPS, but the RTX A1000 also offers FP16 at 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1), something the M6000 cannot do at all. This makes the RTX A1000 the better choice for mixed-precision workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different architectural generations. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. The RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip, built on Ampere, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 8 nm. This drives the transistor density numbers, 13.3 million transistors per square millimeter for the M6000 versus 43.5 million for the RTX A1000. The M6000 has 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, while the RTX A1000 packs 8,700 million transistors into just 200 mm². The RTX A1000 achieves nearly 9% more transistors in a third of the die area.

Shader configurations differ significantly. The M6000 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M6000 has more of everything in the traditional rasterization pipeline. But the RTX A1000 adds 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, hardware that did not exist in Maxwell. These enable real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, both of which are completely absent from the M6000's feature set.

Clock speeds also reflect the architectural divide. The M6000 runs at a 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. The RTX A1000 runs at a much lower 727 MHz base but boosts to 1462 MHz. The Ampere card has a wider clock range and a significantly higher boost ceiling. Memory technology differs as well: the M6000 uses GDDR5 at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the RTX A1000 uses GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The newer memory type delivers higher effective speed despite the lower base clock.

Power and physical specs reflect the process advantage. The M6000 has a 250 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, needs a 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 600 W power supply. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, is a single-slot card, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The RTX A1000 is also much smaller: 163 mm long and 69 mm tall, versus 267 mm long and 111 mm tall for the M6000. The bus interface differs too: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M6000, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX A1000. The RTX A1000's PCIe 4.0 interface offers higher bandwidth per lane, though the x8 width partially offsets that advantage.

The API support tells the generational story. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RTX A1000's display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The production status also differs: the M6000 is end-of-life, while the RTX A1000 is active. The M6000 released in March 2015; the RTX A1000 released in April 2024.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split. Pick the NVIDIA RTX A1000 if your workloads use OpenCL, ray tracing, tensor cores, or any modern DirectX 12 Ultimate feature. It wins both shared benchmarks, offers FP16 support, and delivers 23.8% higher OpenCL performance. It also runs on 50 W, fits in a single slot, requires no power connectors, and is an active product. For new system builds, particularly compact workstations or systems where power and space are constrained, the RTX A1000 is the practical choice.

Pick the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 if your workloads are traditional rasterization, memory-bandwidth heavy, or need more VRAM. Its 12 GB frame buffer, 317.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 106.9 GPixel/s pixel rate give it clear advantages in those areas. Its aggregate benchmark score of 43301 is significantly higher than the RTX A1000's 34207, and it sits in the 84th percentile of all GPUs versus the 79th. The M6000 is end-of-life, so availability may be limited to used or refurbished markets, but the recorded data shows it remains competitive in specific use cases.

There is no universal winner. The RTX A1000 wins the shared tests and offers modern features. The M6000 wins the aggregate scoring and dominates in memory and rasterization throughput. The choice depends entirely on the workload.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 52078 versus 39688 for the Quadro M6000, a 23.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 win any shared benchmark?

A: No. The RTX A1000 wins both shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL by 23.8% and Geekbench Vulkan by 5.4%.

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the RTX A1000 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX A1000 has 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. The Quadro M6000 has neither.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler, and needs a 1x 8-pin power connector with a 600 W suggested power supply. The RTX A1000 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply.

Q: Which card has the higher aggregate benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M6000 has an average benchmark score of 43301, compared to 34207 for the RTX A1000. The M6000 also ranks in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 79th for the RTX A1000.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | NVIDIA RTX A1000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

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

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 200 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 727 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1462 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 192 | 72 |

| ROPs | 96 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 18 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 72 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 46.78 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 105.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.844 TFLOPS | 6.737 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

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

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | 267 mm, 111 mm | 163 mm, 69 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2024-04-15 |