NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits the two benchmark tests evenly, with each GPU claiming one victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile scores 79,091 against the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179, a delta of 6.2% in favor of the mobile part. This is a notable result because the A3000 Mobile operates at significantly lower clock speeds and power limits, yet it still outperforms the desktop-class Quadro in this compute workload. The OpenCL result places the A3000 Mobile 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000, which scores 69,986, and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000, confirming that its compute lead over the RTX 6000 is not an anomaly but a consistent trait among its direct rivals.

The Geekbench Vulkan test paints a dramatically different picture. The Quadro RTX 6000 posts a score of 129,564, while the RTX A3000 Mobile manages only 61,189. That is a 111.7% advantage for the Quadro, more than doubling the mobile GPU's output. This margin is the single largest swing in the head-to-head comparison, and it aligns with the Quadro's position in the overall database: its average benchmark score is 101,872, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. The A3000 Mobile, by contrast, has an average score of 70,140 and sits in the 91st percentile. The Vulkan gap also shows up in the rival comparisons: the Quadro's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, averages 106,750 (4.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X averages 107,342 (5.1% behind), meaning the Quadro's Vulkan dominance is consistent with its overall standing among high-end workstation parts.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip, based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The transistor counts are close: the TU102 packs 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The GA104 contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, achieving a density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The Ampere part is therefore more than twice as dense per area, a direct result of the smaller process node.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The Quadro RTX 6000 features 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A3000 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) and 264.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro offers four times the capacity and more than twice the bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Compute resources also diverge. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The RTX A3000 Mobile has 4,096 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 32 RT cores, and 128 tensor cores. The Quadro holds a clear lead in TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores, though the shading unit counts are relatively close. The FP32 throughput tells the story: the Quadro delivers 16.31 TFLOPS, while the A3000 Mobile delivers 10.08 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 32.62 TFLOPS (with a 2:1 ratio) on the Quadro versus 10.08 TFLOPS (1:1) on the mobile part. The clock speeds are also very different: the Quadro runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the A3000 Mobile runs at 600 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A3000 Mobile wins in OpenCL compute, which suggests an advantage in workloads that rely on general-purpose GPU compute rather than graphics rendering. Its 6.2% lead over the Quadro in that specific test, combined with its much lower power envelope (70 W versus 260 W), indicates that for compute-heavy tasks that fit within its 6 GB memory limit, the mobile part can be surprisingly efficient. Its nearest rivals, all within 1.7% of its average score, show that it holds its own against desktop workstation cards like the Quadro P6000 and the Radeon Pro WX 8200, which is a strong result for a portable GPU.

The Quadro RTX 6000 wins decisively in Vulkan, which is a graphics API. The 111.7% margin means it is not merely faster, it is in a different class for Vulkan-based rendering. Its 24 GB memory capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth give it room for large scenes, and its higher pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s versus 78.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s versus 157.4 GTexel/s) reinforce that it is built for heavy rasterization workloads. The Quadro also leads in the overall database percentile: 94th versus 91st, and its average score of 101,872 versus 70,140 shows a 45% aggregate advantage across all recorded benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The process node is 12 nm for the Quadro versus 8 nm for the A3000 Mobile. The foundries are TSMC versus Samsung. The die size is 754 mm² versus 392 mm². Transistor density is 24.7 million per mm² versus 44.4 million per mm². Base clock is 1440 MHz versus 600 MHz. Boost clock is 1770 MHz versus 1230 MHz. Memory clock is 1750 MHz versus 1375 MHz. Memory size is 24 GB versus 6 GB. Memory bus width is 384-bit versus 192-bit. Memory bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 264.0 GB/s. Shading units are 4,608 versus 4,096. TMUs are 288 versus 128. ROPs are 96 versus 64. RT cores are 72 versus 32. Tensor cores are 576 versus 128. Pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 78.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 157.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS. FP16 is 32.62 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS. TDP is 260 W versus 70 W.

The power connector situation is also distinct: the Quadro requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector and suggests a 600 W power supply, while the A3000 Mobile has no power connectors and no suggested PSU, since it is a mobile part. The bus interface differs (PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16), and the display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C on the Quadro versus "Portable Device Dependent" on the A3000 Mobile. The Quadro is dual-slot with dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the A3000 Mobile has no slot width or dimensions listed. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD; the A3000 Mobile has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ: the Quadro launched on 2018-08-12, the A3000 Mobile on 2021-04-11. Their predecessors and successors also differ: the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere, while the A3000 Mobile's predecessor is Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, with 672.0 GB/s, versus 264.0 GB/s on the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile.

Q: Does the RTX A3000 Mobile beat the Quadro RTX 6000 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL, the A3000 Mobile scores 79,091 versus 74,179, a 6.2% advantage.

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

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872, and the RTX A3000 Mobile averages 70,140.

Q: How many RT cores does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 72 RT cores, while the RTX A3000 Mobile has 32 RT cores.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has a TDP of 260 W, while the RTX A3000 Mobile has a TDP of 70 W.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking in the database?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 ranks in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A3000 Mobile ranks in the 91st percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split along workload types. For Vulkan-based graphics, rendering, and any task that stresses pixel and texture throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 is the superior choice. Its 111.7% Vulkan lead, 24 GB memory, and 96 ROPs make it the obvious pick for high-resolution graphics work, and its 94th percentile standing reflects that strength. The A3000 Mobile's 91st percentile is respectable, but its Vulkan score of 61,189 is less than half of the Quadro's 129,564, so any graphics-heavy user should favor the desktop card.

For compute workloads in OpenCL, the RTX A3000 Mobile is the better performer despite its lower raw specs. Its 79,091 score beats the Quadro's 74,179, and it does so at a fraction of the power draw (70 W versus 260 W). If the workload fits within 6 GB of memory and relies on OpenCL, the mobile part is the more efficient choice. However, the Quadro's larger memory and higher FP32 throughput (16.31 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS) mean that any compute task exceeding 6 GB or requiring more raw floating-point horsepower would swing back to the Quadro.

The database shows two wins each, so there is no overall champion. The choice depends entirely on the target application. The Quadro RTX 6000 suits desktop workstations with ample power and cooling, where maximum graphics performance and large memory pools are non-negotiable. The RTX A3000 Mobile suits portable systems where power efficiency and compute acceleration in OpenCL are priorities, provided the memory footprint stays modest. Users who need both high-end Vulkan rendering and large memory should take the Quadro; users who need efficient OpenCL compute in a mobile chassis should take the A3000 Mobile. The recorded data offers no third option.