NVIDIA Quadro M6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains only two shared benchmark tests between the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and the NVIDIA RTX A5000, and the RTX A5000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5000 scores 157,905 against the Quadro M6000's 39,688, a delta of 74.9% in favor of the newer card. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a fundamental leap in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the RTX A5000 posting 137,828 versus 46,913 for the Quadro M6000, a 66% advantage. These are not close contests, and the average benchmark score reflects the same gap, with the Quadro M6000 averaging 43,301 across its recorded tests while the RTX A5000 averages 33,622, though that figure is skewed by the A5000's inclusion of multiple legacy DirectX and 2D tests.

The Quadro M6000's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile at 43,268 (0.1% ahead), the Quadro M6000 24 GB at 43,262 (0.1% behind), and the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER at 43,223 (0.2% behind). The RTX A5000's closest competitors are far less flattering: the GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB at 33,694 (0.2% behind the A5000), the AMD Radeon RX 7700S at 33,849 (0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 7950 at 33,951 (1% behind). In other words, the RTX A5000's average score places it in the company of mid-range gaming cards from several generations ago, which suggests its benchmark profile is dominated by tests that do not fully exercise its workstation-oriented feature set. The Quadro M6000, by contrast, sits alongside much more modern and capable hardware in its average score, indicating that its two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) are representative of its strengths.

The percentile data reinforces the split. The Quadro M6000 ranks in the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX A5000 ranks in the 78th percentile. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the different benchmark suites each card was subjected to. The M6000's percentile is built on a small set of compute-heavy tests where it performs respectably. The A5000's percentile is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX 9, 10, and 12 scores (251, 153, and 87 respectively), which are negligible for a modern workstation card but count against its aggregate. The practical takeaway is that the RTX A5000 is overwhelmingly faster in the tests where both cards were measured, but the database's overall ranking does not fully capture that advantage because of the A5000's broader, less favorable test set.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded wins, the RTX A5000 wins both head-to-head tests, so it holds a 2-0 advantage in direct comparisons. The Quadro M6000 has zero wins in the shared tests. However, the use-case split is more nuanced than the win count suggests. The RTX A5000's Geekbench OpenCL score of 157,905 is roughly 4 times the M6000's 39,688, which indicates a massive advantage in general-purpose GPU compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, such as rendering, simulation, and data processing. Its Vulkan score of 137,828 versus 46,913 similarly points to a strong lead in modern graphics APIs, which matter for real-time visualization and gaming-adjacent workloads.

The Quadro M6000, despite losing both tests, still has a role. Its average benchmark score of 43,301 is higher than the RTX A5000's 33,622, and its 84th percentile ranking is above the A5000's 78th. This means that in the database's broader context, the M6000 is not an embarrassment; it is a competent card for its era. The M6000's two recorded benchmarks, OpenCL and Vulkan, are the same tests that make up its entire profile, and they show it performing at a level comparable to a GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223, only 0.2% behind) or an RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268, 0.1% ahead). So for users constrained to older software that does not use modern API features, the M6000 is still competitive with recent mid-range hardware in those specific tests.

The RTX A5000 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, which are not benchmark scores but matter for real workloads. It has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 12 GB of GDDR5, and its bandwidth of 768.0 GB/s is more than double the M6000's 317.4 GB/s. For large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-GPU rendering, that memory advantage is decisive. The M6000's 12 GB is workable for many tasks, but the A5000's 24 GB removes memory as a bottleneck entirely for most professional workflows. The A5000 also has dedicated ray tracing cores (64) and tensor cores (256), which the M6000 lacks entirely, so any workload that uses RT or tensor acceleration will only run on the A5000.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8,000 million transistors into a 601 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.3 million per mm². The RTX A5000 uses the GA102 chip on Ampere architecture, made on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 28,300 million transistors in a 628 mm² die, for a density of 45.1 million per mm². That density difference is the core of the performance gap: the A5000 fits more than three times the transistors into nearly the same silicon area, enabling far more compute units.

The compute unit counts are stark. 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. The shading unit count is more than 2.5 times higher on the A5000, which directly explains the FP32 throughput difference: 27.77 TFLOPS for the A5000 versus 6.844 TFLOPS for the M6000. The A5000 also has 64 RT cores and 256 tensor cores, features that did not exist in Maxwell. The M6000 has no such hardware. The A5000's FP16 performance is 27.77 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the M6000's FP16 performance is not recorded, implying it lacks dedicated FP16 throughput.

Memory architecture also diverges. The M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1,653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for 317.4 GB/s bandwidth. The A5000 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on the same 384-bit bus, but memory runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding 768.0 GB/s. The process node shrink from 28 nm to 8 nm is the enabling factor for the higher clocks and efficiency, though power consumption is actually lower on the A5000: 230 W versus 250 W for the M6000. The suggested PSU is also lower for the A5000 at 550 W versus 600 W for the M6000. Both cards are dual-slot and use a single 8-pin power connector, and both are 267 mm long, but the A5000 is 112 mm tall versus 111 mm for the M6000, a negligible difference.

The API support reflects the generational gap. 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 12_2 feature level on the A5000 enables hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, which are not available on the M6000. Display outputs differ as well: the M6000 has one DVI port and four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the A5000 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 on the M6000 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the A5000, which matters for data transfer in systems that support PCIe 4.0. The M6000's release date is March 2015, while the A5000's is April 2021, a six-year gap that explains the architectural chasm.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A5000 is the superior card in every shared benchmark and in every architectural metric that matters for modern workloads. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 74.9% and Geekbench Vulkan by 66%, and it offers 24 GB of memory versus 12 GB, more than double the bandwidth, and 27.77 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 6.844 TFLOPS. It also brings ray tracing and tensor cores to the table, which the Quadro M6000 cannot match. Anyone working with current rendering engines, AI inference, or large-scale data processing should choose the RTX A5000 without hesitation.

The Quadro M6000 is not without merit, but its merits are historical. Its 84th percentile ranking and average score of 43,301 place it near modern mid-range hardware like the GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER (43,223) and RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) in the specific tests it runs. If a workload is locked to older APIs or does not benefit from RT/tensor cores, the M6000 can still hold its own. But its 28 nm process, GDDR5 memory, and lack of hardware-accelerated ray tracing make it a poor choice for new projects. The A5000's 78th percentile is a quirk of its broader test suite, not a reflection of its true capability; in the shared tests, it is categorically faster.

For a builder assembling a new workstation in 2025 or later, the RTX A5000 is the only sensible pick from these two, assuming it can be sourced. For someone maintaining a legacy system that already runs a M6000, the upgrade to an A5000 would deliver roughly a 4x improvement in OpenCL compute and more than double the memory bandwidth, which is a transformative jump for GPU-bound workloads. The M6000's lower power draw (250 W) and lower suggested PSU (600 W) are not enough to offset the A5000's advantages, especially since the A5000 actually draws less (230 W) and needs a smaller PSU (550 W) despite being far faster. The verdict is clear: the RTX A5000 wins, and it wins by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5000 scores 157,905 versus the Quadro M6000's 39,688, a 74.9% advantage for the A5000.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), and the RTX A5000 wins both. The M6000 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5, while the RTX A5000 has 24 GB of GDDR6. The A5000's memory bandwidth is 768.0 GB/s, more than double the M6000's 317.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance difference?

A: The RTX A5000 delivers 27.77 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro M6000 delivers 6.844 TFLOPS. The A5000 is roughly 4 times faster in raw single-precision throughput.

Q: Do either cards support ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX A5000 has dedicated ray tracing hardware, with 64 RT cores. The Quadro M6000 has no RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: Which card ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile?

A: The Quadro M6000 ranks in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A5000 ranks in the 78th percentile. This is due to the A5000's broader benchmark suite, which includes legacy DirectX tests where it scores low.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 | NVIDIA RTX A5000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 601 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.3M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 988 MHz | 1170 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1695 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz, 6.6 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 768.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 8192 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 96 |

| RT Cores | None | 64 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 256 |

| FP32 Performance | 6.844 TFLOPS | 27.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not recorded | 27.77 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 230 W |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

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

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

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

| Release Date | 2015-03-20 | 2021-04-11 |