NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single common benchmark between these two workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB delivers a score of 66,998 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 39,688 points. This represents a delta of 40.8% in favor of the RTX A2000 12 GB, meaning the newer Ampere-based card outperforms the Maxwell-based Quadro by a substantial margin in this compute-oriented workload.

The Geekbench OpenCL result is notable because it measures raw parallel compute throughput, which is a primary function for workstation cards. The RTX A2000 12 GB's score of 66,998 places it well ahead of the Quadro M6000's 39,688, and the 40.8% gap is significant enough to be a deciding factor for any OpenCL-centric application. Across the entire database, the RTX A2000 12 GB wins this head-to-head by a clear margin; the data records zero wins for the Quadro M6000 in this comparison.

When examining the broader context, the average benchmark score for the Quadro M6000 is 43,301, which places it in the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (average score 43,268, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB (average score 43,262, delta 0.1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (average score 43,223, delta 0.2%). The Quadro M6000 also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile, which scores 43,667, a delta of -0.8% relative to the Quadro. These numbers indicate that the Quadro M6000, despite its age, holds its own against a set of much newer consumer and mobile parts in aggregate scoring.

The RTX A2000 12 GB, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 34,154, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (average score 34,133, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (average score 34,207, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (average score 33,997, delta 0.5%), and the NVIDIA TITAN V (average score 34,355, delta -0.6%). The RTX A2000 12 GB's average score is lower than the Quadro M6000's average, yet its single OpenCL result is far superior. This discrepancy suggests that the RTX A2000 12 GB's strength is concentrated in specific workloads, particularly those that leverage its newer architecture features, while its overall average is dragged down by other tests that are not present in this head-to-head comparison.

The data shows a clear split: in the one benchmark where both cards are measured, the RTX A2000 12 GB is decisively faster. However, the aggregate database scores tell a more nuanced story, with the Quadro M6000 ranking higher in percentile terms. This is a reminder that a single benchmark, while informative, does not capture the full spectrum of workstation performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by six years of GPU architecture evolution. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is built on the GM200 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A2000 12 GB uses the GA106 chip with the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This process shrink is substantial: the Quadro M6000 packs 8,000 million transistors onto a 601 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The RTX A2000 12 GB crams 12,000 million transistors into a much smaller 276 mm² die, achieving a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter, more than three times higher.

Memory technology also diverges. The Quadro M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 317.4 GB/s. The RTX A2000 12 GB also has 12 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a narrower 192-bit bus, resulting in 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the faster memory technology keeps the bandwidth within a close range. The RTX A2000 12 GB's memory runs at 12 Gbps effective, while the Quadro M6000's memory operates at 6.6 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ in configuration. The Quadro M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. The RTX A2000 12 GB has more shading units at 3,328, but fewer TMUs at 104 and only 48 ROPs. Critically, the RTX A2000 12 GB introduces dedicated hardware that the Quadro M6000 lacks entirely: 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. These are absent from the Maxwell architecture, which predates the introduction of RT and tensor core hardware.

Clock behavior is also distinct. The Quadro M6000 has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz. The RTX A2000 12 GB has a much lower base clock of 562 MHz, but a higher boost clock of 1200 MHz. This suggests the Ampere card relies more heavily on boost behavior under load. The resulting pixel rate for the Quadro M6000 is 106.9 GPixel/s, while the RTX A2000 12 GB achieves 57.60 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 213.9 GTexel/s for the Quadro M6000 versus 124.8 GTexel/s for the RTX A2000 12 GB.

Raw FP32 compute throughput favors the RTX A2000 12 GB at 7.987 TFLOPS, compared to 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro M6000. Additionally, the RTX A2000 12 GB supports FP16 at 7.987 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro M6000 has no recorded FP16 capability. The API feature sets reflect generational progress: the Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A2000 12 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A2000 12 GB also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro M6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Power and physical characteristics are dramatically different. The Quadro M6000 has a TDP of 250 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 600 W. It is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. The RTX A2000 12 GB has a TDP of just 70 W, requires no external power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It is much smaller at 167 mm long and 69 mm tall. Both are dual-slot cards. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro M6000 has 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the RTX A2000 12 GB has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 40.8% higher than the Quadro M6000's score of 39,688.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both cards have 12 GB of memory, but the Quadro M6000 uses GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, while the RTX A2000 12 GB uses GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No, the Quadro M6000 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A2000 12 GB includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the RTX A2000 12 GB has a TDP of 70 W and a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The RTX A2000 12 GB delivers 7.987 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 6.844 TFLOPS for the Quadro M6000.

Q: Which card supports PCIe 4.0?

A: The RTX A2000 12 GB uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro M6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB |

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

| Chip | GM200 | GA106 |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 276 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 192 | 104 |

| ROPs | 96 | 48 |

| RT Cores | None | 26 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 104 |

| Pixel Rate | 106.9 GPixel/s | 57.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 213.9 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.844 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 70 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

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

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

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

| Dimensions (LxH) | 267 mm x 111 mm | 167 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2021-11-22 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 449 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 12 GB is the clear winner in raw compute throughput, specifically in OpenCL workloads where it leads by 40.8%. It also wins on architectural features that matter for modern rendering and AI-adjacent tasks: it has dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, neither of which exist on the Quadro M6000. Its higher FP32 performance (7.987 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS) and FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio make it better suited for workloads that exploit mixed-precision arithmetic. The RTX A2000 12 GB also wins in power efficiency and physical footprint, with a 70 W TDP and a 167 mm length compared to the Quadro M6000's 250 W TDP and 267 mm length. It requires no external power connector and only a 250 W PSU, making it a far easier fit for compact workstations or systems with limited power headroom. Its PCIe 4.0 interface and DirectX 12 Ultimate support also make it more future-proof for software that leverages the latest API features.

The Quadro M6000 wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 317.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s for the RTX A2000 12 GB, despite the RTX A2000 12 GB using faster GDDR6 memory. This is due to the Quadro M6000's much wider 384-bit bus. The Quadro M6000 also has significantly higher pixel rate (106.9 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (213.9 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s), which can benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks that are not dependent on the newer architecture features. Its greater number of ROPs (96 versus 48) and TMUs (192 versus 104) support these higher fill rates.

In aggregate database scoring, the Quadro M6000 ranks higher, at the 84th percentile compared to the 79th percentile for the RTX A2000 12 GB. Its average benchmark score of 43,301 exceeds the RTX A2000 12 GB's 34,154, indicating that across a broader set of recorded tests, the older card performs better despite losing the single head-to-head OpenCL test. The Quadro M6000's nearest rivals include the RTX 4070 SUPER and RTX 4090 Mobile, which are much newer, suggesting its overall balanced performance remains competitive.

For use cases, the RTX A2000 12 GB is the better choice for OpenCL compute, ray tracing, tensor-based workloads, and any scenario where power draw and physical size are constraints. The Quadro M6000 is preferable for applications that are sensitive to memory bandwidth, pixel fill rate, or texture throughput, and for users who need the wider memory bus. The Quadro M6000's higher percentile ranking also suggests it may be more consistent across a variety of legacy workstation applications. The RTX A2000 12 GB, with its launch MSRP of 449 USD, offers a modern feature set in a compact, low-power package, while the Quadro M6000, with no recorded launch MSRP, represents the older high-end workstation tier. The data does not record a release date for the Quadro M6000's successor, but its end-of-life status and 2015 release date indicate it is a much older design.