NVIDIA Quadro P6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive overall win for the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile over the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. Across the two tests in the database, the RTX A5500 Mobile wins both, with no benchmark where the Quadro P6000 takes the lead. The average benchmark score for the RTX A5500 Mobile is 113944, whereas the Quadro P6000 averages 69986. That difference places the RTX A5500 Mobile in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000 sits in the 90th percentile.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 Mobile scores 124287 against the Quadro P6000's 66382. That is an 87.2% advantage for the newer mobile part. This is the largest single gap between the two cards in any test. To put this in context, the RTX A5500 Mobile's nearest rival in the database, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, averages 114395, which is only 0.4% below the A5500 Mobile's average. The Quadro P6000's OpenCL result is far lower than even its own nearest competitors, such as the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69870, which is 0.2% above the Quadro P6000's average. The OpenCL score for the A5500 Mobile is roughly 87% higher than the Quadro P6000's, indicating a massive generational shift in raw compute throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A5500 Mobile again wins, scoring 103601 versus 73590 for the Quadro P6000. The delta here is 40.8%. While smaller than the OpenCL gap, it is still a substantial margin. The Vulkan result for the A5500 Mobile is lower than its own OpenCL score, while the Quadro P6000's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the older Pascal architecture handles Vulkan relatively better than OpenCL compared to the Ampere part, but the absolute performance still favors the RTX A5500 Mobile by a wide margin.

The delta between the two cards in Vulkan (40.8%) is less than half the delta in OpenCL (87.2%). This indicates that the A5500 Mobile's advantage is not uniform across APIs. The older Quadro P6000 narrows the gap in Vulkan, yet it remains firmly behind. The average score gap, 113944 versus 69986, translates to a 62.8% higher average for the RTX A5500 Mobile. No recorded test shows the Quadro P6000 ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built for different physical form factors. The RTX A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip, based on the older Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap: the smaller 8 nm node allows for 22,000 million transistors on a 496 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro P6000 packs 11,800 million transistors on a 471 mm² die, for a density of 25.1 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the transistor density in the Ampere part.

The RTX A5500 Mobile has 7424 shading units, 232 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. The Quadro P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The shading unit count is nearly double in the A5500 Mobile, while the TMU count is slightly lower (232 versus 240). The ROP count is identical at 96.

The compute rates reflect these architectural differences. The RTX A5500 Mobile achieves 22.27 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and the same 22.27 TFLOPS for FP16, running at a 1:1 ratio. The Quadro P6000 delivers 12.63 TFLOPS of FP32 and only 197.4 GFLOPS of FP16, at a 1:64 ratio. That means the A5500 Mobile has about 76% higher FP32 throughput and more than a hundred times higher FP16 throughput. The pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s for the A5500 Mobile versus 157.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro P6000, so the older card actually leads in pixel fill rate. Similarly, the texture rate is 348.0 GTexel/s for the A5500 Mobile versus 394.8 GTexel/s for the Quadro P6000, again favoring the Pascal part. These fill rate wins do not translate into overall benchmark wins, however.

The memory subsystems differ as well. The RTX A5500 Mobile uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s. The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s. So the A5500 Mobile has higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus, thanks to faster memory rated at 16 Gbps effective versus 9 Gbps effective for the Quadro P6000. The Quadro P6000 offers more total memory capacity, but the A5500 Mobile has faster memory.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A5500 Mobile versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro P6000. The power envelope is also very different. The RTX A5500 Mobile has a TDP of 165 W, while the Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W. The Quadro P6000 requires a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the A5500 Mobile has no power connectors listed, being a portable device dependent part. The A5500 Mobile is a mobile GPU, while the Quadro P6000 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The API support also differs. The RTX A5500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the A5500 Mobile, while the Quadro P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The release dates are far apart: the Quadro P6000 was released on 2016-09-30, while the RTX A5500 Mobile was released on 2022-03-21. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro P6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, while the A5500 Mobile has no recorded launch MSRP. The predecessor and successor names also reflect the generational gap: the Quadro P6000 follows Quadro Maxwell and is succeeded by Quadro Volta, while the A5500 Mobile follows Quadro Turing-M and is succeeded by Ada-MW.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 113944, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 averages 69986. The A5500 Mobile ranks in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000 ranks in the 90th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile scores 124287 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 66382 for the Quadro P6000. That is an 87.2% advantage for the A5500 Mobile.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The Quadro P6000 loses both recorded tests. It scores 66382 in OpenCL and 73590 in Vulkan, while the RTX A5500 Mobile scores 124287 and 103601 respectively.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and which has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P6000 has more memory at 24 GB, compared to 16 GB for the RTX A5500 Mobile. However, the A5500 Mobile has higher memory bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s, versus 432.8 GB/s for the Quadro P6000.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile uses the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm process, with 7424 shading units, 58 ray tracing cores, and 232 tensor cores. The Quadro P6000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process, with 3840 shading units and no ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile has a TDP of 165 W and no power connectors, while the Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GA103 (A5500 Mobile) versus GP102 (Quadro P6000)
• Architecture: Ampere versus Pascal
• Process Node: 8 nm versus 16 nm
• Foundry: Samsung versus TSMC
• Transistors: 22,000 million versus 11,800 million
• Die Size: 496 mm² versus 471 mm²
• Transistor Density: 44.4M / mm² versus 25.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: 975 MHz versus 1506 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1500 MHz versus 1645 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 16 GB versus 24 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5X
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 384 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s
• Shading Units: 7424 versus 3840
• TMUs: 232 versus 240
• RT Cores: 58 versus none
• Tensor Cores: 232 versus none
• Pixel Rate: 144.0 GPixel/s versus 157.9 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 348.0 GTexel/s versus 394.8 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 22.27 TFLOPS versus 12.63 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 165 W versus 250 W
• Slot Width: Not specified versus Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: Not specified versus 600 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Dimensions: Not specified versus 267 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2022-03-21 versus 2016-09-30
• Launch MSRP: Not recorded versus 5,999 USD
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing-M versus Quadro Maxwell
• Successor: Ada-MW versus Quadro Volta

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 Mobile wins in all recorded benchmark tests, so the primary use case is clear: any workload that relies on compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan will favor the A5500 Mobile. The 87.2% lead in OpenCL suggests that general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing, will be dramatically faster on the Ampere part. The 40.8% lead in Vulkan also makes the A5500 Mobile the better choice for GPU-accelerated graphics workloads that use the Vulkan API. Its higher FP32 throughput (22.27 TFLOPS versus 12.63 TFLOPS) and vastly higher FP16 throughput (22.27 TFLOPS versus 197.4 GFLOPS) reinforce this conclusion for compute-heavy tasks. The inclusion of 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores gives the A5500 Mobile capabilities that the Quadro P6000 simply lacks, making it the only option for ray-traced rendering or AI inference workloads that rely on tensor operations. The higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s) also helps in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

The Quadro P6000 does have some areas where it is not outclassed on paper, even though it loses all benchmarks. Its pixel rate is higher at 157.9 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is higher at 394.8 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s. These metrics suggest that in pure rasterization fill-rate bound scenarios, the older Pascal card might hold an edge in theory, but the benchmark data does not show a win in any actual test. The Quadro P6000 also offers more memory capacity at 24 GB versus 16 GB, which could be relevant for workloads that need to hold very large datasets on the GPU, such as certain medical imaging or large model visualization tasks, provided the lower compute throughput is acceptable. Its dual-slot desktop form factor with fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a) makes it a straightforward drop-in for a workstation desktop, whereas the A5500 Mobile is a mobile part with display outputs dependent on the portable device.

For a workstation user with a fixed desktop setup who needs more memory and can tolerate lower compute performance, the Quadro P6000 remains a functional choice, especially if the software is not optimized for newer architectures. However, for any modern workload involving ray tracing, tensor cores, Vulkan, or high FP16 throughput, the RTX A5500 Mobile is the clear winner. The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the A5500 Mobile wins both tests, with an average score 62.8% higher than the Quadro P6000. The Quadro P6000's nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69870, are all close to its own average, while the A5500 Mobile's nearest rivals, like the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117088, are far above the Quadro P6000's performance level. The conclusion from the data is that the RTX A5500 Mobile is in a different performance class entirely.