NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA RTX A5500 and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000. Across the two benchmark tests available in the database, the RTX A5500 wins both. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 against the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74,179. That is a delta of 135.4%, meaning the newer card more than doubles the older one’s compute throughput in this particular workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a narrower margin: the RTX A5500 posts 155,797 versus 129,564, a 20.2% advantage. While the Vulkan gap is smaller, it still represents a clear win for the RTX A5500 in both measured scenarios.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the separation becomes even more apparent. The RTX A5500 holds an average score of 165,217, while the Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872. That is roughly a 62% difference in overall measured performance, and it places the two cards in different competitive tiers. The RTX A5500 sits at the 97th percentile among all GPUs in the database, whereas the Quadro RTX 6000 sits at the 94th percentile. Both are high performers, but the A5500 is clearly the stronger part.

The RTX A5500’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, which averages 164,894 (a 0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, which averages 166,094 (a -0.5% delta). The Quadro RTX 6000, by contrast, competes with parts like the AMD Radeon RX 7900M at 97,487 (a 4.5% delta) and the AMD Radeon Pro VII at 97,131 (a 4.9% delta). These rival clusters show that the RTX A5500 is competing in a much higher performance bracket than the Quadro RTX 6000, even though both cards carry 24 GB of memory.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction: the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the stronger GPU for essentially every workload captured in the database. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, holds a substantially higher average score, and ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution. The Quadro RTX 6000, while still a capable workstation card, is outclassed by the A5500 in raw compute terms.

For users choosing between these two, the RTX A5500 is the clear pick if performance is the priority. The 135.4% lead in OpenCL and the 20.2% lead in Vulkan are not small margins; they indicate a generational leap in compute capability. The RTX A5500 also consumes less power on paper, with a 230 W TDP versus the Quadro RTX 6000’s 260 W, and it requires a smaller power supply recommendation at 550 W versus 600 W. The A5500 also uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the Quadro RTX 6000 needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector.

The Quadro RTX 6000 does have one advantage in the specification sheet: its launch MSRP was 6,299 USD. The RTX A5500 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database, so no direct price comparison can be made. Beyond that, the Quadro RTX 6000’s only notable edge is its higher base clock (1440 MHz versus 1080 MHz) and its higher pixel rate (169.9 GPixel/s versus 159.8 GPixel/s), but neither translates into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different manufacturing generations. The RTX A5500 is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA102 chip, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses the Turing architecture with the TU102 chip. This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy and compute capabilities.

The manufacturing process also differs. The RTX A5500 is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses a 12 nm process at TSMC. The smaller node gives the A5500 a significant transistor density advantage: the GA102 packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.1 million transistors per mm². The TU102, by contrast, has 18,600 million transistors on a larger 754 mm² die, for a density of 24.7 million per mm². The A5500 fits more transistors into a smaller physical area, which helps explain its higher performance despite a lower TDP.

The core configurations are dramatically different. The RTX A5500 has 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and the same 96 ROPs. The A5500 more than doubles the shading unit count, which directly feeds its FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS versus the Quadro RTX 6000’s 16.31 TFLOPS. The A5500 also has more ray tracing cores (80 versus 72) and fewer tensor cores (320 versus 576). The FP16 comparison is interesting: the A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the Quadro RTX 6000 delivers 32.62 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. This means the A5500 achieves its FP16 number at a true 1:1 rate, which can be more predictable for certain compute workloads.

The memory subsystems are similar in capacity but differ in bandwidth. Both cards have 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, but the A5500’s memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for 672.0 GB/s. The A5500 also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16.

Specification Differences

Several specification fields separate these two cards. The process node differs: 8 nm for the A5500, 12 nm for the Quadro RTX 6000. The foundry is different as well: Samsung for the former, TSMC for the latter. Transistor counts are 28,300 million versus 18,600 million, and die sizes are 628 mm² versus 754 mm². Transistor density is 45.1M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

The base clocks differ: 1080 MHz for the A5500 versus 1440 MHz for the Quadro RTX 6000. The boost clocks are closer, with the A5500 at 1665 MHz and the Quadro RTX 6000 at 1770 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth is 768.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

The shading units are 10,240 versus 4,608. TMUs are 320 versus 288. ROPs are the same at 96. RT cores are 80 versus 72. Tensor cores are 320 versus 576. Pixel rates are 159.8 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 532.8 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 34.10 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1).

The TDP is 230 W versus 260 W. The power connectors are 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. The suggested PSU is 550 W versus 600 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. The display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C. The dimensions are nearly identical: 267 mm length for both, with the A5500 at 112 mm height versus 111 mm for the Quadro RTX 6000. The release dates are far apart: March 21, 2022 for the A5500, August 12, 2018 for the Quadro RTX 6000. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 6,299 USD; the A5500 does not.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500, with an average score of 165,217 compared to the Quadro RTX 6000’s 101,872.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A5500 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A5500 scores 174,637 versus 74,179 for the Quadro RTX 6000, a 135.4% advantage.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, but the RTX A5500 has higher bandwidth at 768.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX A5500 has 10,240 shading units, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RTX A5500 has a 230 W TDP and suggests a 550 W PSU, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000, at 169.9 GPixel/s versus 159.8 GPixel/s for the RTX A5500, even though the A5500 wins in overall benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 wins in nearly every measurable category that affects compute and rendering performance. It dominates in FP32 throughput (34.10 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS), texture rate (532.8 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s), memory bandwidth (768.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s), and transistor density. It also wins both head-to-head benchmark tests in the database. For workloads that rely on raw compute, OpenCL acceleration, or Vulkan rendering, the RTX A5500 is the clear choice. Its higher percentile ranking (97th versus 94th) reinforces that it sits in a higher performance class overall.

The Quadro RTX 6000 has a few narrow wins in the specification sheet. Its pixel rate is slightly higher at 169.9 GPixel/s versus 159.8 GPixel/s, which could matter for fill-rate-bound scenarios, though no benchmark in the database confirms this advantage in practice. It also has more tensor cores (576 versus 320), which might be relevant for certain Tensor Core-specific workloads, and its FP16 output of 32.62 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio is close to the A5500’s 34.10 TFLOPS at 1:1. The Quadro RTX 6000 also has a higher base clock (1440 MHz versus 1080 MHz) and a higher boost clock (1770 MHz versus 1665 MHz), though the A5500’s architectural advantages overcome this in measured tests.

The practical takeaway from the data is that the RTX A5500 is the better card for almost any scenario. Its wins are not marginal; they are substantial, particularly in OpenCL compute. The Quadro RTX 6000 remains a functional workstation GPU with a high pixel rate and a large tensor core count, but the recorded benchmarks show it trailing the RTX A5500 by a wide margin. Users working with OpenCL-heavy applications, Vulkan-based renderers, or general FP32 compute should favor the RTX A5500 without hesitation. The Quadro RTX 6000’s only clear advantage in the database is its recorded launch MSRP, which is a pricing detail rather than a performance metric.