NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 and NVIDIA RTX A4500 represent two distinct eras of professional workstation graphics, with the Turing architecture facing off against its Ampere successor. Benchmark data shows a clear generational shift in compute performance, but the older card retains a significant memory capacity advantage. This analysis breaks down their head-to-head results, architectural differences, and ideal use cases based strictly on the provided specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a decisive victory for the NVIDIA RTX A4500 in raw compute workloads, though the margin varies dramatically by test. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the RTX A4500 scores 141,837 points, while the Quadro RTX 6000 manages only 74,179 points. This represents a 47.7% deficit for the older Quadro card, making it the largest performance gap between the two in any measured test. The OpenCL result is particularly telling because it exercises general-purpose compute through shading units, where the RTX A4500’s architecture shows a substantial advantage.

The Geekbench Vulkan benchmark tells a much closer story. Here, the RTX A4500 scores 131,402 points, edging out the Quadro RTX 6000’s 128,037 points by just 2.6%. Vulkan’s lower-level API access tends to favor architectures with higher raw shading throughput, but the Turing card’s higher boost clock and larger memory bus help it stay competitive. The 2.6% delta is within the margin of what could be considered a narrow win, but the data still records it as a victory for the Ampere card.

Overall, the RTX A4500 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with the OpenCL result being the standout differentiator. The average benchmark score for the RTX A4500 sits at 92,145, while the Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,108 — a 9.7% advantage for the older card. This inversion between the individual OpenCL/Vulkan results and the average score suggests that the RTX 6000’s broader benchmark portfolio, which includes other tests, helps it maintain a higher aggregate standing despite losing these two specific comparisons.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RTX A4500 sits just 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (91,713) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134). The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X by 5.8% (107,342) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II by 8.1% (109,967). Both cards rank in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are both high-end performers in their respective generations.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark, starting with the manufacturing process. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, while the RTX A4500 employs the GA102 chip fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm node. This process shrink allows the RTX A4500 to pack 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, contains 18,600 million transistors on a larger 754 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 24.7M per mm². The newer process node gives the RTX A4500 a 44.2% density advantage despite having 34.4% fewer square millimeters of silicon.

Core configurations also differ fundamentally. The RTX A4500 features 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This means the RTX A4500 has 55.6% more shading units but 22.2% fewer TMUs, with identical ROP counts. The ray tracing and tensor core situation is reversed: the Quadro RTX 6000 has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, while the RTX A4500 has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. The Turing card’s tensor core count is 157.1% higher, which historically benefits AI-accelerated workloads.

Clock speeds show the Quadro RTX 6000 running at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the RTX A4500 operates at 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the RTX A4500 achieves higher FP32 throughput at 23.65 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS for the Quadro RTX 6000 — a 45% advantage. The FP16 story is more complex: the RTX A4500 delivers 23.65 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro RTX 6000 hits 32.62 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. Memory architecture also diverges, with the Quadro RTX 6000 using a 384-bit bus and the RTX A4500 a 320-bit bus, though the newer card compensates with faster 16 Gbps effective memory versus 14 Gbps on the older card.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the clear winner in raw compute throughput and modern API utilization. Its 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 45% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 16.31 TFLOPS, making it the better choice for general-purpose GPU computing, simulation, and rendering workloads that scale with shading unit count. The Geekbench OpenCL result, where it leads by 47.7%, reinforces this strength. The A4500 also wins the Vulkan test, though by a narrower 2.6% margin, suggesting it handles modern graphics APIs at least as well as the older card. Additionally, the A4500’s PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the bandwidth of the RTX 6000’s PCIe 3.0 x16, which can benefit data transfer-heavy workflows.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 retains advantages in several specific areas that matter for certain professional workloads. Its 24 GB of memory is 20% larger than the RTX A4500’s 20 GB, which is critical for massive datasets, high-resolution textures, or large machine learning models that exceed 20 GB. The 384-bit memory bus provides 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 640.0 GB/s on the A4500, a 5% advantage that helps with memory-intensive tasks. The Quadro RTX 6000 also has 72 RT cores versus 56 on the A4500, and 576 tensor cores versus 224 — a 2.6x tensor core advantage that could accelerate AI inference workloads. Its higher texture rate of 509.8 GTexel/s versus 369.6 GTexel/s gives it an edge in texture-heavy rendering, and the 169.9 GPixel/s pixel rate beats the A4500’s 158.4 GPixel/s.

The average benchmark scores add nuance: the Quadro RTX 6000’s 101,108 average is 9.7% higher than the RTX A4500’s 92,145, despite losing both direct comparisons. This suggests that outside the two tested benchmarks, the RTX 6000 performs better in other workloads, likely benefiting from its larger memory pool and higher bandwidth for specific tasks.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node shifts from 12 nm (TSMC) to 8 nm (Samsung), with the RTX A4500 achieving higher transistor density at 45.1M / mm² versus 24.7M / mm². The chip changes from TU102 to GA102, and the generation moves from Quadro Turing to Workstation Ampere. Transistor count rises from 18,600 million to 28,300 million, while die size shrinks from 754 mm² to 628 mm². Clocks differ: the RTX 6000 has a 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, while the A4500 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. Memory speed improves from 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) to 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration changes from 24 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus to 20 GB GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, though bandwidth only drops slightly from 672.0 GB/s to 640.0 GB/s. Shading units jump from 4,608 to 7,168, while TMUs drop from 288 to 224; ROPs stay at 96. RT cores decrease from 72 to 56, and tensor cores fall dramatically from 576 to 224. Pixel rate declines from 169.9 GPixel/s to 158.4 GPixel/s, and texture rate drops from 509.8 GTexel/s to 369.6 GTexel/s. FP32 output rises from 16.31 TFLOPS to 23.65 TFLOPS, with FP16 changing from 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) to 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1). Power requirements fall from 260 W to 200 W, with the suggested PSU dropping from 600 W to 550 W, and the power connector simplifies from 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin to a single 8-pin.

Bus interface upgrades from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16. The display outputs drop the USB Type-C port, leaving both with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are nearly identical, with the RTX A4500 being 1 mm taller. Release dates differ significantly: the Quadro RTX 6000 launched in August 2018, while the RTX A4500 arrived in November 2021. The Quadro RTX 6000 carried a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD, while the RTX A4500 has no listed launch MSRP. Both cards are end-of-life, with the RTX 6000 succeeding Quadro Volta and the A4500 succeeding Quadro Turing.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 delivers 23.65 TFLOPS FP32, which is 45% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 16.31 TFLOPS.

Q: How large is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RTX A4500 has 20 GB — a 4 GB difference favoring the older card.

Q: Which card wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark and by how much?

A: The RTX A4500 wins with a score of 141,837 versus 74,179 for the Quadro RTX 6000, representing a 47.7% advantage.

Q: What are the ray tracing core counts for each GPU?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 72 RT cores, while the RTX A4500 has 56 RT cores, giving the older card a 28.6% higher count.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), along with OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two cards?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP, while the RTX A4500 is more efficient at 200 W — a 60 W reduction for the newer card.