NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA’s RTX A1000 Mobile and Quadro M6000 represent two very different eras of GPU design, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The data shows a split decision: the A1000 Mobile wins the OpenCL benchmark decisively, while the Quadro M6000 edges ahead in Vulkan by a hair. This makes the choice entirely dependent on which workload you prioritize, as the underlying hardware philosophies could not be more different.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly along API lines. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 Mobile scores 48,703 against the Quadro M6000’s 39,688, a 22.7% advantage. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the A1000’s modern architecture’s strength in compute-oriented tasks that scale well with its feature set. The A1000 lands in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while its average benchmark score of 47,743 places it just 1.5% behind an AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT and 2.2% ahead of an AMD Radeon RX 6550M.

The Quadro M6000 takes the Vulkan test with a score of 46,913 versus 46,782, a delta of only -0.3% in its favor. This is effectively a tie, but it is a win nonetheless. The M6000’s 84th percentile ranking and average score of 43,301 put it within 0.1% of a GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile and 0.8% behind a GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile, showing that its older architecture still holds its own in certain graphics API workloads. For users running OpenCL-heavy applications, the A1000 is the clear pick; for Vulkan-based tasks, the M6000 offers a marginal edge.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from opposite ends of NVIDIA’s design timeline. The RTX A1000 Mobile uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter, a figure that highlights the efficiency of the Ampere architecture. The Quadro M6000, by contrast, relies on the GM200 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors spread across a massive 601 mm² die, giving a density of just 13.3 million per square millimeter.

The A1000 features 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, alongside 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The M6000 has more raw shading hardware with 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but it lacks any dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. Clock speeds favor the older card: the M6000 runs at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost, while the A1000 sits lower at 630 MHz base and 1140 MHz boost. Memory configurations diverge sharply, with the A1000 using 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for 176.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the M6000’s 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus delivering 317.4 GB/s.

Power and physical design differ fundamentally. The A1000 is an IGP with a 60 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The M6000 is a dual-slot card drawing 250 W with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested 600 W power supply. The M6000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the A1000’s dimensions are listed as portable-device dependent. The A1000 supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support also differs: the A1000 reaches DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the M6000 tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1) with the same Vulkan 1.4 support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the headline number. The A1000’s 48,703 score versus the M6000’s 39,688 represents a 22.7% advantage, which is the largest margin in this comparison. This result aligns with the A1000’s average benchmark score being 10.3% higher than the M6000’s, and it suggests that the A1000’s tensor cores and ray tracing hardware, even at lower clock speeds, provide a meaningful boost in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The M6000’s higher FP32 throughput of 6.844 TFLOPS versus the A1000’s 4.669 TFLOPS does not translate into a win here, indicating that architectural efficiency outweighs raw shader count in this test.

The Vulkan benchmark flips the script, but barely. The M6000 scores 46,913 against the A1000’s 46,782, a 0.3% difference. This near-tie suggests that in Vulkan, the M6000’s larger memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s versus 176.0 GB/s) and higher pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 36.48 GPixel/s) help close the gap that OpenCL exposed. The M6000’s texture rate of 213.9 GTexel/s also dwarfs the A1000’s 72.96 GTexel/s, which may benefit certain graphics-bound Vulkan tasks. However, the A1000’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and newer feature sets does not appear to give it an edge in this specific test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 47,743, while the Quadro M6000 averages 43,301.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile scores 48,703 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22.7% higher than the Quadro M6000’s 39,688.

Q: Is the Quadro M6000 better in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Quadro M6000 wins Geekbench Vulkan with 46,913 versus 46,782, a 0.3% margin.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support ray tracing?

A: No. The RTX A1000 Mobile has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro M6000 has none listed.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile has a density of 43.5 million transistors per mm², versus 13.3 million per mm² for the Quadro M6000.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 8 nm Samsung for the A1000 versus 28 nm TSMC for the M6000. Die size: 200 mm² versus 601 mm². Transistor count: 8,700 million versus 8,000 million. Base clock: 630 MHz versus 988 MHz. Boost clock: 1140 MHz versus 1114 MHz. Memory clock: 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). Memory size: 4 GB versus 12 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Bus width: 128 bit versus 384 bit. Bandwidth: 176.0 GB/s versus 317.4 GB/s. Shading units: 2048 versus 3072. TMUs: 64 versus 192. ROPs: 32 versus 96. Ray tracing cores: 16 versus none. Tensor cores: 64 versus none. Pixel rate: 36.48 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 72.96 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.669 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. TDP: 60 W versus 250 W. Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: not listed versus 600 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Release date: March 2022 versus March 2015. The A1000 has no launch MSRP listed, and neither does the M6000.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. If your primary applications rely on OpenCL, the RTX A1000 Mobile is the superior choice, delivering a 22.7% performance advantage in that benchmark. Its modern Ampere architecture with tensor and ray tracing cores, combined with a much smaller and more power-efficient design, makes it a compelling option for compute tasks that leverage those features. The A1000’s 85th percentile ranking also places it slightly higher than the M6000’s 84th, reinforcing its overall edge in average scores.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the Quadro M6000 wins, but the margin is negligible at 0.3%. The M6000’s massive memory bandwidth and higher pixel and texture rates give it a narrow edge in this API, and its 12 GB of VRAM provides a capacity advantage that could matter for large datasets. However, the M6000’s 250 W power draw and dual-slot form factor make it impractical for portable systems, whereas the A1000 is explicitly designed for mobile use with a 60 W TDP and IGP form factor. If you need a desktop workstation card with high memory capacity and can tolerate the power requirements, the M6000 has merit; if you need a mobile solution with better OpenCL compute, the A1000 is the only option. The benchmark data does not favor one card overall—it favors each in its respective domain.