NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 vs NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation is the decisive winner in every recorded benchmark category, and the data does not support a single scenario where the older Quadro RTX 6000 comes out ahead. The Ada card wins both head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score of 287,237 places it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 sits at the 94th percentile with an average score of 101,872.

For workloads dominated by OpenCL compute, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is in a completely different tier. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 311,629 is 320.1% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. This is not a marginal generational step; it is a four-fold performance gap that reshapes what is feasible for GPU compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, and data-parallel processing. The Ada card's FP32 throughput of 91.06 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS on the Quadro tells the same story at the architectural level.

Vulkan workloads show a narrower but still overwhelming advantage. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 262,845 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 102.9% ahead of the Quadro RTX 6000's 129,564. This means the Ada card doubles the older card's performance in graphics API workloads that are increasingly common in professional visualization and real-time rendering pipelines.

The use-case split is therefore simple: any workload that can use the Ada card's resources will favor it. The Quadro RTX 6000, while still a capable workstation GPU from the Turing era, cannot match the Ada card in any measured dimension. For users running modern compute-heavy applications, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is the only rational choice based on these numbers.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation in OpenCL compute?

A: The Ada card scores 311,629 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 320.1% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. This represents more than a four-fold improvement in raw compute performance.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 6000 win in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks recorded, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation wins both. The Quadro RTX 6000 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 287,237, placing it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872, placing it in the 94th percentile.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 262,845, which is 102.9% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 129,564. The Ada card more than doubles the older card's Vulkan performance.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RTX 6000 Ada Generation?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA L40 (average score 284,111, 1.1% behind), the NVIDIA L40S (295,763, 2.9% ahead), the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994, 9.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA L20 (251,147, 14.4% behind).

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the Quadro RTX 6000?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (average score 97,487, 4.5% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131, 4.9% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750, 4.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342, 5.1% ahead).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the largest performance differential between these two cards. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation records 311,629 points, while the Quadro RTX 6000 manages 74,179 points. This 320.1% delta is the defining metric of the comparison. To put it in context, the Quadro RTX 6000's score is closer to the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487) than it is to the Ada card, despite that AMD part being a nearest rival to the older NVIDIA card rather than the newer one.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a smaller but still substantial gap. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation scores 262,845, and the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564, a 102.9% difference. This result indicates that even in graphics-oriented workloads where the Turing architecture's advantages should be relatively strongest, the Ada Lovelace card still doubles the older card's performance.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation averages 287,237 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872. This places the Ada card 182% higher on average, and the percentile ranking (99th versus 94th) shows that the Ada card sits among the very top of all GPUs, while the Quadro card is merely above average for its era.

When comparing the Ada card to its own nearest rivals, the scores show it is competitive at the high end. The NVIDIA L40 scores 284,111 (1.1% behind), the L40S scores 295,763 (2.9% ahead), and the AMD Instinct MI300X scores 317,994 (9.7% ahead). The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, sits in a lower performance tier where its nearest rivals are all within 5.1% of its score, including the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X at 107,342 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo at 106,750.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation uses the AD102 chip on a 5 nm process, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on a 12 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the process node difference is fundamental to their performance gap.

Memory capacity doubles between generations: the Ada card has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the Quadro has 24 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 384 bit bus, but the Ada card's memory clock runs at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the Quadro. This yields bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s on the Ada card versus 672.0 GB/s on the Quadro.

The compute resources are drastically different. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 142 RT cores, and 568 tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. Interestingly, the Quadro has slightly more tensor cores (576 versus 568), but this does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded benchmarks.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The Ada card has a base clock of 915 MHz and a boost clock of 2505 MHz, while the Quadro has a base clock of 1440 MHz and a boost clock of 1770 MHz. The Ada card's boost clock is much higher despite the lower base clock, reflecting the efficiency of the newer process node.

Power and connectivity differ as well. The Ada card has a TDP of 300 W with a single 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The Quadro has a TDP of 260 W with a 6-pin and 8-pin connector setup and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Ada card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the Ada card, while the Quadro adds 1x USB Type-C alongside its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The transistor counts reflect the architectural leap: the Ada card packs 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, while the Quadro has 18,600 million transistors on a larger 754 mm² die. Transistor density is 125.3M per mm² on the Ada card versus 24.7M per mm² on the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the older Turing architecture. This is more than a naming difference; it represents a complete redesign of the GPU compute pipeline. The Ada card's FP32 performance of 91.06 TFLOPS is a direct measure of this redesign. The Quadro's FP32 of 16.71 TFLOPS and FP16 of 32.62 TFLOPS show Turing's focus on half-precision workloads, though its FP16 is rated at 16.31 TFLOPS in FP32 and 16.71 TFLOPS in FP16 with a 1:1 ratio.

The Ada card's FP16 performance is 91.06 TFLOPS in both FP16 and FP32, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The Quadro's FP16 performance of 32.62 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio means it processes half-precision tasks at a different rate than its FP32, which is 16.31 TFLOPS. The 1:1 ratio on the Ada card means its FP16 and FP32 operations run at the same rate, 91.06 TFLOPS, while the Quadro's 2:1 ratio means its FP16 operations run at a rate of 32.62 TFLOPS, which is twice its FP32 rate of 16.31 TFLOPS.

The architectural differences also show in the shading and texturing rates. The Ada card achieves a pixel rate of 481.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 1,422.8 GTexel/s. The Quadro manages 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s. These rates reflect the Ada card's higher shading unit count (18,176 versus 4,608) and TMU count (568 versus 288).

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 4.1, so API compatibility is not a differentiator. The RT core and tensor core architectures differ, however. The Ada card has 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores, while the Quadro has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. The Ada card's ray tracing hardware is more numerous, which is relevant for rendering workloads, while the tensor core count is nearly identical, with the Quadro actually having a slight edge.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life. The Ada card was released on 2022-12-02, and its predecessor is Workstation Ampere, with a successor of Blackwell PRO W. The Quadro was released on 2018-08-12, with a predecessor of Quadro Volta and a successor of Workstation Ampere. The launch MSRP for the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 6,799 USD, and the Quadro RTX 6000 had a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 in every recorded benchmark, with a 320.1% lead in OpenCL and a 102.9% lead in Vulkan. The average benchmark score of 287,237 versus 101,872 places the Ada card in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits in the 94th percentile.

Users who need maximum compute throughput for OpenCL-heavy workloads should choose the RTX 6000 Ada Generation. The 48 GB memory capacity, 960.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 91.06 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it suitable for large-scale rendering, simulation, and data processing tasks. Its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA L40 and L40S, are within 2.9% of its average score, indicating it is competitive at the very top of the workstation GPU market.

Users who require Vulkan performance for real-time graphics or visualization should also choose the RTX 6000 Ada Generation. The 102.9% lead over the Quadro RTX 6000 in this test means the Ada card delivers more than double the performance in this API, which is critical for modern graphics pipelines.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is not without merit as a historical product. Its average score of 101,872 places it in the 94th percentile, and its nearest rivals (AMD Radeon RX 7900M, Radeon Pro VII, Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, and Radeon Pro W6600X) are all within 5.1% of its performance. For users already invested in Turing-era systems, it remains a functional workstation GPU. However, the recorded data shows no scenario where it wins against the Ada card.

The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is the superior product by every measurable metric in the database. Its higher memory capacity, greater bandwidth, more shading units, and higher boost clock translate into dominant benchmark results. The Quadro RTX 6000, while still a competent GPU in its own right, is outclassed to a degree that makes it unsuitable for any workload where the Ada card is available.