NVIDIA Quadro P6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA’s RTX A3000 Mobile and Quadro P6000 represent opposite ends of the professional GPU spectrum, separated by five years of architectural evolution and a massive gap in physical design. The A3000 is a modern, power-sipping mobile part built on a 8 nm process, while the P6000 is a dual-slot desktop behemoth from the Pascal era. Benchmark data shows them landing within a whisker of each other on average, yet their individual strengths and weaknesses paint very different pictures depending on the workload. This analysis breaks down exactly where each card excels, using only the measured numbers from the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their two benchmark results almost perfectly, but with decisive margins in each direction. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A3000 Mobile posts a score of 79,091 against the Quadro P6000’s 66,382, giving the mobile part a commanding 19.1% lead. This is a substantial victory, indicating that the A3000’s modern Ampere architecture handles compute-heavy OpenCL workloads with far greater efficiency than the older Pascal design. The result is particularly striking given the A3000’s 70 W TDP versus the P6000’s 250 W TDP — the mobile chip achieves a 19.1% higher score while consuming roughly a third of the power.

The tables turn completely in the Vulkan test. Here, the Quadro P6000 scores 73,590 against the A3000’s 61,189, a 16.9% advantage for the desktop card. This is a significant reversal that suggests the P6000’s higher clock speeds — 1,645 MHz boost versus 1,230 MHz — and its 384-bit memory bus give it an edge in graphics-API-driven workloads. The Vulkan result is not a marginal win; it is a clear statement that raw rasterization throughput still matters, even in a modern benchmark environment.

Averaging the two results, the A3000 Mobile achieves a mean benchmark score of 70,140, while the P6000 lands at 69,986. That is a difference of just 0.2%, effectively a statistical tie. The database places the A3000 at the 91st percentile of all GPUs and the P6000 at the 90th, confirming they occupy nearly identical tiers of overall performance. The nearest rivals reinforce this picture: the A3000 is 0.2% ahead of the P6000, 0.4% ahead of the Radeon Pro WX 8200, and 1.7% ahead of the CMP 90HX, while trailing the RX 6600 LE by 1%. The P6000 shows the same cluster, with a 1.4% lead over the CMP 90HX and a 1.2% deficit to the RX 6600 LE. In aggregate, these two cards are peers, but the path to that parity could not be more different.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A3000 Mobile is built on the GA104 chip using Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P6000, by contrast, uses the GP102 chip with older Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 11,800 million transistors on a larger 471 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. The A3000’s newer node allows it to fit 47% more transistors into a smaller physical area — evidence of how far fabrication advanced between 2016 and 2021.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The A3000 Mobile uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 264.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The P6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, with bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s — 64% higher. The P6000’s memory subsystem is clearly designed for massive datasets, while the A3000’s smaller pool reflects its mobile constraints. Clock speeds also favor the older card: the P6000 runs at a 1,506 MHz base and 1,645 MHz boost, versus the A3000’s 600 MHz base and 1,230 MHz boost. The memory clocks tell the same story, with the P6000’s 1,127 MHz and 9 Gbps effective rate versus the A3000’s 1,375 MHz and 11 Gbps effective.

The A3000 compensates with a wider compute layout: 4,096 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 32 RT cores and 128 tensor cores. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, but no RT or tensor cores at all. The A3000’s 10.08 TFLOPS of FP32 performance trails the P6000’s 12.63 TFLOPS, and the gap widens dramatically in FP16: the A3000 delivers 10.08 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. The P6000’s pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 394.8 GTexel/s dwarf the A3000’s 78.72 GPixel/s and 157.4 GTexel/s, but the A3000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the P6000’s DirectX 12 (12_1), reflecting its newer feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A3000 Mobile is the clear winner in OpenCL compute workloads, posting a 19.1% higher score than the P6000. This advantage stems directly from its Ampere architecture, which brings modern tensor cores and a 1:1 FP16 ratio — features the Pascal-based P6000 entirely lacks. For tasks that leverage OpenCL for GPU-accelerated computation, whether in rendering, simulation, or data processing, the A3000 is measurably faster despite its lower peak FP32 rating. Its 70 W TDP also makes it viable in compact or mobile systems where the P6000’s 250 W requirement and dual-slot cooler would be impossible to accommodate.

The Quadro P6000 wins decisively in Vulkan, with a 16.9% higher score. This benchmark favors its higher clock speeds, larger ROP count (96 versus 64), and substantially higher memory bandwidth (432.8 GB/s versus 264.0 GB/s). The P6000’s 24 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the A3000’s 6 GB, making it the obvious choice for workloads that require massive textures, large scene graphs, or multi-GPU rendering setups where VRAM capacity is the bottleneck. Its pixel rate of 157.9 GPixel/s is exactly double the A3000’s, indicating superior fill-rate-bound performance in traditional graphics pipelines.

The P6000 also leads in raw FP32 throughput, 12.63 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS, and offers a 384-bit bus that provides the bandwidth headroom for high-resolution displays or multi-monitor configurations. However, the A3000 counters with PCIe 4.0 x16 support versus the P6000’s PCIe 3.0 x16, which can reduce data transfer bottlenecks in system memory-bound applications. Neither card has a decisive advantage in every metric; the choice depends entirely on which workload profile matches the user’s primary applications.

The Verdict

Choose the RTX A3000 Mobile if your work is dominated by OpenCL compute, modern API features, or if you require a professional-grade GPU in a power-constrained or portable chassis. Its 19.1% OpenCL lead is the single largest margin in any benchmark comparison, and its 91st percentile ranking confirms it competes with far larger desktop cards. The presence of RT and tensor cores, plus DirectX 12 Ultimate support, makes it the more future-proof option for workloads that will increasingly leverage ray tracing and AI-accelerated features. The 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it can fit into systems where a 250 W card with an 8-pin connector simply cannot go.

Choose the Quadro P6000 if your primary concern is Vulkan performance, massive VRAM capacity, or raw fill-rate. The 16.9% Vulkan advantage is substantial, and the 24 GB of GDDR5X memory is unmatched by the A3000’s 6 GB. The P6000’s 432.8 GB/s bandwidth and 157.9 GPixel/s pixel rate make it superior for texture-heavy rendering, large-scale visualization, or any workload that fits within its 384-bit memory subsystem. Its 90th percentile ranking shows it remains competitive even against much newer silicon, and the 5,999 USD launch MSRP reflects its original position as a top-tier professional card.

For most users, the A3000 Mobile is the more balanced recommendation. Its average benchmark score is technically higher (70,140 versus 69,986), it draws far less power, and it brings modern architectural features that the P6000 cannot match. But if your specific applications rely on Vulkan or need more than 6 GB of VRAM, the P6000’s strengths are impossible to ignore. The data shows a genuine tie on average — the right choice comes down to which benchmark matches your workflow.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A3000 Mobile scores 70,140 on average, which is 0.2% higher than the Quadro P6000’s 69,986.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A3000 Mobile in OpenCL?

A: The A3000 Mobile scores 79,091 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the P6000’s 66,382 by 19.1%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the RTX A3000 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 support ray tracing?

A: No, the P6000 has no RT cores or tensor cores, while the A3000 Mobile includes 32 RT cores and 128 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has higher power consumption?

A: The Quadro P6000 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, compared to the RTX A3000 Mobile’s 70 W TDP with no power connectors.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro P6000 scores 73,590 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 16.9% higher than the A3000 Mobile’s 61,189.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Pascal |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 16 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 11,800 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 471 mm² |

| Base Clock | 600 MHz | 1,506 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,230 MHz | 1,645 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 264.0 GB/s | 432.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4,096 | 3,840 |

| TMUs | 128 | 240 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 32 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 128 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 10.08 TFLOPS | 12.63 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.08 TFLOPS (1:1) | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 70 W | 250 W |

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

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

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 5,999 USD |