GPU Comparison

The data presents a clear generational shift between two workstation GPUs: the NVIDIA RTX A4500, built on the Ampere architecture, and the older NVIDIA Quadro P6000, based on Pascal. While the P6000 offers a larger memory pool, the benchmark results indicate that the A4500 dominates in every measured performance category, making it the superior choice for most modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4500 wins decisively in all head-to-head benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 141,837 against the P6000’s 66,382, a 113.7% advantage. Similarly, in Geekbench Vulkan, the A4500 posts 129,980 versus 73,590, a 76.6% lead. These are not marginal wins; they represent a near-doubling of raw compute performance in OpenCL and a substantial 1.77x improvement in Vulkan.

The Quadro P6000’s only advantage lies in memory capacity. It features 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, compared to the A4500’s 20 GB of GDDR6. This 4 GB difference could matter for datasets that exceed 20 GB but fit within 24 GB. However, the P6000’s memory bandwidth is significantly lower at 432.8 GB/s versus the A4500’s 640.0 GB/s. The P6000 also has a slightly higher texture rate (394.8 GTexel/s vs 369.6 GTexel/s) and a marginally higher pixel rate (157.9 GPixel/s vs 158.4 GPixel/s, essentially a tie). These are narrow wins in auxiliary metrics that do not translate into benchmark victories.

The RTX A4500 also holds a percentile advantage: it sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the P6000 is in the 90th. Its average benchmark score of 91,671 is substantially above the P6000’s 69,986. For any workload that leverages compute, shading, or ray tracing, the A4500 is the clear winner. The P6000 is only relevant for tasks where its larger memory is a hard requirement.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is fundamental. The A4500 uses the GA102 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, containing 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. In contrast, the P6000 uses the GP102 chip on a 16 nm TSMC process, with 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die. This process shrink allows the A4500 to pack 45.1 million transistors per mm² versus the P6000’s 25.1 million, explaining the massive compute advantage.

The A4500 features 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the Pascal-based P6000. The A4500’s FP32 throughput is 23.65 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is also 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The P6000 manages only 12.63 TFLOPS FP32 and a paltry 197.4 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio). The FP16 disparity is staggering; the A4500 is roughly 120x faster in half-precision compute, which is critical for AI and machine learning workloads.

The A4500 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the P6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Both use a single 8-pin power connector, but the A4500 draws 200 W versus the P6000’s 250 W, making it more power-efficient despite being faster. The A4500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P6000 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The A4500 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the P6000 has one DVI plus four DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX A4500 is the superior GPU for nearly all tasks. It delivers 113.7% higher OpenCL performance and 76.6% higher Vulkan performance, while consuming 50 W less power. Its modern architecture provides RT and tensor cores, enabling features like ray tracing and accelerated AI inference that the P6000 cannot perform at all.

The only reason to choose the Quadro P6000 is if a specific workload requires more than 20 GB of VRAM but fits within 24 GB. In that narrow scenario, the P6000’s larger memory pool is an advantage. However, this comes at the cost of significantly lower compute performance, lower memory bandwidth, and a lack of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations.

For professionals working with large 3D scenes, complex simulations, or AI models, the RTX A4500 is the obvious pick. Its higher average benchmark score (91,671 vs 69,986) places it in a higher performance tier. The P6000, while still a capable card for its age, is a legacy product with a lower ceiling. The A4500 is end-of-life too, but it represents a far more modern and capable architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 141,837 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 113.7% higher than the Quadro P6000’s 66,382.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 have more memory than the RTX A4500?

A: Yes, the P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory, while the A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6. However, the A4500’s memory bandwidth is higher at 640.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

Q: Can the Quadro P6000 handle ray tracing workloads?

A: No, the P6000 has no RT cores (null value in its specifications). The RTX A4500 includes 56 RT cores, making it capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The RTX A4500 has a TDP of 200 W, while the Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W. The A4500 delivers significantly higher performance while drawing less power.

Q: What is the difference in FP16 (half-precision) performance?

A: The RTX A4500 achieves 23.65 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro P6000 achieves only 197.4 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64 ratio). This is a massive difference for AI and compute tasks.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are marked as "End-of-life" in the data. The A4500 was released in November 2021, while the P6000 was released in September 2016.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two direct benchmark comparisons show a clean sweep for the RTX A4500. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A4500’s score of 141,837 dwarfs the P6000’s 66,382. The delta of 113.7% means the A4500 is more than twice as fast in this workload. This is expected given the A4500’s 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the P6000’s 12.63 TFLOPS, but the real-world gap is even larger than the theoretical one.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A4500 scores 129,980, while the P6000 scores 73,590. The delta here is 76.6%, a smaller but still decisive lead. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the A4500’s advantage is likely due to its newer architecture and higher shading unit count (7,168 vs 3,840). The P6000’s higher base clock (1506 MHz vs 1050 MHz) cannot compensate for the A4500’s massive core count advantage.

The A4500’s average benchmark score across all tests is 91,671, compared to the P6000’s 69,986. This 31% average advantage is consistent with the head-to-head results. The A4500 also sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the P6000 sits in the 90th. While both are high-performing cards, the A4500 is clearly in a higher performance bracket. The P6000’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (0.2% slower) and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile (0.2% faster), showing it is competitive with much newer mid-range cards. The A4500, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (0.9% faster) and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (0.6% slower), placing it in a much higher tier.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The A4500 is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the P6000 uses a 16 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are 28,300 million versus 11,800 million, and die sizes are 628 mm² versus 471 mm². The A4500’s transistor density is 45.1M/mm², more than double the P6000’s 25.1M/mm².

Core configurations diverge sharply: the A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, alongside 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Clock speeds are similar at boost (1650 MHz for A4500, 1645 MHz for P6000), but the A4500’s base clock is lower at 1050 MHz versus 1506 MHz.

Memory subsystems differ: the A4500 uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 640.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. The A4500’s effective memory clock is 16 Gbps, while the P6000’s is 9 Gbps. Compute performance is heavily in the A4500’s favor: 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 versus 12.63 TFLOPS, and 23.65 TFLOPS FP16 versus 197.4 GFLOPS.

Power and interface specs also differ. The A4500 has a 200 W TDP and suggests a 550 W PSU, while the P6000 has a 250 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 8-pin connector and identical 267 mm length. The A4500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the P6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the A4500, versus 1x DVI plus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the P6000. The A4500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the P6000 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The P6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD; the A4500 has no listed launch MSRP.