NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro RTX 6000 and RTX A4500 Mobile represent two distinct approaches to professional graphics, separated by nearly four years of architectural evolution. The desktop Turing card leans on sheer memory capacity and raw compute width, while the mobile Ampere part counters with a denser process and higher shading-unit count. Benchmark results from the FACT PACK show a split decision: the A4500 Mobile dominates OpenCL, while the Quadro RTX 6000 crushes Vulkan. This page breaks down those results, the underlying silicon differences, and what each win implies for real-world workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 leads with an average benchmark score of 101872, compared to 91134 for the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile. The desktop card also sits in the 94th percentile among all GPUs, one point higher than the mobile part’s 93rd percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile wins decisively, scoring 105307 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 74179 for the Quadro RTX 6000. That is a 29.6% advantage for the Ampere mobile chip, a substantial margin that suggests better general-purpose compute throughput.

Q: Where does the Quadro RTX 6000 fight back?

A: In Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the clear victor, posting 129564 points against 76960 for the A4500 Mobile. The delta is a massive 68.4% in favor of the Turing card, indicating a strong lead in graphics API workloads that leverage Vulkan’s low-level access.

Q: Are these cards from the same architectural generation?

A: No. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the Turing architecture on a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the RTX A4500 Mobile is built on Ampere using Samsung’s 8 nm node. This generational gap explains many of the specification and performance differences.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 ships with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, resulting in 512.0 GB/s. The desktop card offers 50% more capacity and roughly 31% more bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX A4500 Mobile has 5888 shading units, significantly more than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 4608. However, the Quadro RTX 6000 compensates with far more texture mapping units (288 vs 184) and a higher boost clock.

Architecture Differences

The foundational split is process node and architecture. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on TSMC’s 12 nm process, packing 18,600 million transistors into a 754 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 24.7M per mm². In contrast, the RTX A4500 Mobile uses the GA104 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, fitting 17,400 million transistors into a much smaller 392 mm² die, achieving 44.4M transistors per mm². The mobile chip is nearly twice as dense, a direct result of the newer fabrication technology.

Clock speeds tell a story of power versus efficiency. The Quadro RTX 6000 runs at a base of 1440 MHz and boosts to 1770 MHz, while the A4500 Mobile is significantly lower, with a 930 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the Ampere chip achieves higher FP32 throughput: 17.66 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS for the Turing card. This is due to the higher shading-unit count, but the FP16 comparison is stark: the Quadro RTX 6000 hits 32.62 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the A4500 Mobile manages only 17.66 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double FP16 work.

Ray tracing and tensor core configurations also diverge. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, while the A4500 Mobile has 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. The Turing card’s tensor core advantage is massive, a 3.1x lead in count, which could matter for AI inference tasks. The mobile part’s memory clock is higher at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the narrower 256-bit bus limits its overall bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split suggests distinct workload preferences. The RTX A4500 Mobile wins in OpenCL, a compute-oriented API used for general-purpose GPU programming. Its 29.6% lead in that test points to strengths in scientific simulation, data processing, and other non-graphics compute tasks. The higher shading-unit count and newer architecture likely drive this result, despite lower clocks.

The Quadro RTX 6000 dominates Vulkan, a graphics-heavy API common in professional visualization, game engines, and real-time rendering. Its 68.4% margin is enormous, indicating that the Turing card’s higher texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s vs 276.0 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s vs 144.0 GPixel/s) translate directly into superior graphics throughput. The 288 TMUs are a key advantage here, as they handle texture filtering operations that Vulkan workloads heavily utilize.

For memory-bound tasks, the Quadro RTX 6000 is the clear choice. Its 24 GB capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the A4500 Mobile’s 16 GB and 512.0 GB/s. Large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-GPU rendering setups would favor the desktop card. Conversely, the A4500 Mobile’s higher FP32 throughput suggests it could excel in compute-heavy workloads that do not require massive memory pools.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 | NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Process Node | 12 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 5888 |

| TMUs | 288 | 184 |

| RT Cores | 72 | 46 |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | 184 |

| FP32 Performance | 16.31 TFLOPS | 17.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.66 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 140 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2022-03-21 |

The table highlights key divergences. The Quadro RTX 6000 is a power-hungry desktop part at 260 W, requiring dual power connectors, while the A4500 Mobile sips 140 W and needs no connectors. The mobile card supports PCIe 4.0, doubling the interface bandwidth of the older PCIe 3.0 desktop card. Display outputs also differ: the Quadro RTX 6000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the A4500 Mobile’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench results paint a fascinating picture of architectural trade-offs. In OpenCL, the RTX A4500 Mobile scores 105307, handily beating the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74179. That 29.6% delta is the largest win for the mobile card and aligns with its higher FP32 throughput and shading-unit count. The Ampere architecture’s efficiency on 8 nm clearly pays off in compute tasks that scale with shader count.

Vulkan tells the opposite story. The Quadro RTX 6000 posts 129564 versus 76960, a 68.4% advantage that is the single biggest gap in either direction. This result is surprising given the A4500 Mobile’s newer architecture, but the Turing card’s 288 TMUs and 96 ROPs, combined with higher clocks, likely drive the victory. The desktop card’s texture rate of 509.8 GTexel/s is nearly double the mobile part’s 276.0 GTexel/s, which would directly benefit Vulkan’s draw-call-heavy rendering paths.

The average benchmark scores reflect these splits. The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101872, boosted by its Vulkan dominance, while the A4500 Mobile averages 91134, dragged down by its weak Vulkan showing. In the nearest rivals comparison, the Quadro RTX 6000 sits close to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106750, -4.6%) and Radeon Pro W6600X (107342, -5.1%), while the A4500 Mobile is nearly tied with the RTX A4500 (91671, -0.6%) and slightly ahead of the Quadro GP100 (87445, 4.2%).

The Verdict

The data suggests two very different buyers. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is the choice for compute-centric professionals who prioritize OpenCL throughput and power efficiency. Its 140 W TDP, 17.66 TFLOPS FP32, and 29.6% OpenCL lead over the Quadro RTX 6000 make it a compelling mobile workstation option for scientific computing, data analytics, or any workload that relies on general-purpose GPU compute. Its 16 GB memory is sufficient for many tasks, though not all.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, despite being older and end-of-life, remains the graphics powerhouse. Its 68.4% Vulkan victory is a decisive indicator of superior rendering performance, and the 24 GB memory capacity with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth is unmatched by the mobile part. For professionals in 3D visualization, video editing, or game development, the Quadro RTX 6000’s 94th percentile standing and higher average score (101872) make it the stronger choice—provided the 260 W power draw and desktop form factor are acceptable.

Neutral analysis of the benchmark data shows no single winner. The RTX A4500 Mobile wins one test, the Quadro RTX 6000 wins the other, and the average scores favor the desktop card by 11.8%. The deciding factor is workload: compute-heavy tasks favor Ampere, graphics-heavy tasks favor Turing. The A4500 Mobile’s position among its rivals (within 0.6% of the desktop RTX A4500) shows it holds its own, while the Quadro RTX 6000’s proximity to AMD’s Pro Vega II Duo indicates it still competes with newer hardware. Users must weigh their specific needs—raw graphics muscle versus portable compute efficiency—based on these measured results.