NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 vs NVIDIA RTX A5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 represent two different eras of NVIDIA workstation GPUs, and the recorded benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the Ampere-based A5000 wins eight of nine head-to-head tests, often by double digits. The Quadro RTX 8000's single victory is a photo finish in legacy Direct3D 11 testing, and its only structural advantages are doubled memory capacity and a much larger tensor core count. Everything else, from raw compute throughput to memory bandwidth and power efficiency, tilts toward the newer card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The widest gap appears in OpenCL compute. The RTX A5000 posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 157905 against 101883 for the Quadro RTX 8000, a 55% lead that reflects the generational jump in shader throughput: 27.77 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 16.31 TFLOPS. That is the single most lopsided result in the dataset and it directly mirrors the architecture story, since Ampere's FP32 units run at full rate while Turing's are halved for combined-precision work.

The rest of the compute-oriented results follow the same direction. Passmark GPU Compute shows 12455 for the A5000 versus 9992 for the RTX 8000, a 24.6% advantage. Geekbench Vulkan lands at 137828 versus 122637, a 12.4% win for the A5000, a narrower margin than OpenCL but still decisive.

Graphics testing tells a consistent story. Passmark G3D, the broadest 3D graphics score in the database, reads 22541 for the A5000 against 19799 for the RTX 8000, a 13.8% gap. Older API tests repeat the pattern: DirectX 12 goes to the A5000 87 to 79 (10.1%), DirectX 10 goes 153 to 137 (11.7%), and DirectX 9 goes 251 to 211 (19%). The 2D test is nearly a blowout at 1032 versus 866, a 19.2% lead for the A5000.

The Quadro RTX 8000's lone win is statistically negligible. Passmark DirectX 11 records 188 for the RTX 8000 against 187 for the A5000, a 0.5% difference that is effectively a tie and well within run-to-run variance for that test. It is the only place in the entire head-to-head dataset where the Turing card finishes ahead.

Aggregate positioning confirms the split. The A5000 averages 33622 across its recorded tests and sits in the 78th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 8000 averages 28421 and sits in the 74th percentile. Their nearest-rival lists barely overlap in character: the A5000's closest comparables include the AMD Radeon RX 7700S and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB, while the RTX 8000 clusters near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti and the AMD Radeon RX 570, an older and slower neighborhood.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to consecutive workstation generations. The RTX A5000 uses the GA102 chip on the Ampere architecture, part of the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) line, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on the Turing architecture, part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) line, fabricated by TSMC on 12 nm. The process shrink shows up clearly in density and transistor count: the A5000 packs 28,300 million transistors into 628 mm² for 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter, while the RTX 8000 carries 18,600 million transistors across a physically larger 754 mm² die at only 24.7 million per square millimeter. The newer card fits more than 50% additional transistors into a smaller die.

The shader configuration diverges in interesting ways. The A5000 has 8192 shading units against 4608 for the RTX 8000, which is why FP32 throughput lands at 27.77 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS despite the Turing card's higher clocks (1770 MHz boost versus 1695 MHz). Turing's FP16 runs at a 2:1 rate and reaches 32.62 TFLOPS, while Ampere's 1:1 FP16 matches its FP32 at 27.77 TFLOPS. Texture units favor the RTX 8000, 288 against 256, which is why its texture fill rate is actually higher at 509.8 GTexel/s versus 433.9 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is marginally higher too at 169.9 GPixel/s against 162.7 GPixel/s. ROPs are identical at 96.

Ray tracing and AI hardware split in opposite directions. The A5000 carries 64 RT cores versus 72 for the RTX 8000, but the tensor core count flips dramatically: 576 on the Turing card against 256 on the Ampere card. Core counts across generations are not directly comparable, and the benchmark results bear that out, with the A5000 dominating despite fewer tensor cores.

Memory is where the RTX 8000 holds its one clear hardware advantage. It ships with 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus at 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A5000 carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on the same 384-bit bus, but its faster 16 Gbps memory (2000 MHz) delivers 768.0 GB/s, roughly 14% more bandwidth than the RTX 8000's 14 Gbps memory at 1750 MHz. So the older card doubles capacity while the newer card delivers more bandwidth.

Platform and power details also differ. The A5000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 with a single 8-pin connector and a 230 W TDP, with a suggested 550 W PSU. The RTX 8000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, needs a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector, draws 260 W, and calls for a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards of essentially identical physical size, 267 mm long and about 112 mm tall. Display outputs are nearly the same, four DisplayPort 1.4a, with the RTX 8000 adding a USB Type-C port. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are now end-of-life; the A5000 launched in April 2021 with the Workstation Ada line as its successor, while the RTX 8000 dates to August 2018 and was itself succeeded by Workstation Ampere.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5000 wins everywhere performance matters. Its 55% OpenCL lead and 24.6% GPU Compute lead make it the clear choice for GPGPU workloads: simulation, rendering engines that use OpenCL or Vulkan, and any compute pipeline sensitive to FP32 throughput. Its 13.8% G3D advantage and wins across DirectX 9, 10, and 12 make it the stronger card for viewport performance and general 3D work. Its higher memory bandwidth (768.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s) reinforces that lead in bandwidth-bound tasks.

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins on memory capacity alone. With 48 GB against 24 GB, it fits larger scenes, datasets, and models than the A5000 can hold, which matters for workloads where capacity is the hard constraint rather than speed. Its higher texture fill rate (509.8 versus 433.9 GTexel/s) is a paper spec that does not translate into benchmark wins, but it is real hardware headroom for texture-heavy rasterization. Its massive tensor core count (576 versus 256) is likewise a generational design difference that did not produce wins in the recorded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall? A: The RTX A5000. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, averages 33622 versus 28421, and sits in the 78th percentile versus the 74th percentile.

Q: Did the Quadro RTX 8000 win anything? A: Only Passmark DirectX 11, by 188 to 187, a 0.5% margin that is effectively a tie.

Q: Which has more memory? A: The Quadro RTX 8000, with 48 GB versus 24 GB. However, the A5000 delivers more bandwidth, 768.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

Q: Which is more power efficient? A: The A5000. It draws 230 W and needs one 8-pin connector and a suggested 550 W PSU, versus 260 W, a 6-pin plus 8-pin, and 600 W for the RTX 8000.

Q: Do both support ray tracing? A: Yes. The A5000 has 64 RT cores and the RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: Are these cards still in production? A: No, both are end-of-life. The RTX 8000 (2018) was succeeded by Workstation Ampere, and the A5000 (2021) by Workstation Ada.

The Verdict

For nearly every buyer, the data points to the RTX A5000. It is faster in every meaningful benchmark, sometimes overwhelmingly so in compute, it delivers more memory bandwidth, it draws less power from a simpler connector setup, and it runs on the newer PCIe 4.0 interface. The Quadro RTX 8000 is the pick only when 48 GB of memory capacity is the deciding requirement, since its 24 GB advantage is the one thing the A5000 cannot overcome with speed. Otherwise, the Turing card's lone benchmark win was by a single point.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A5000 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Turing |

| Chip | GA102 | TU102 |

| Generation | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

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

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 18,600 million |

| Die size | 628 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.1M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1170 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1695 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory size | 24 GB GDDR6 | 48 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory speed | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 8192 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 256 | 288 |

| RT cores | 64 | 72 |

| Tensor cores | 256 | 576 |

| Texture rate | 433.9 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| Pixel rate | 162.7 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| FP32 | 27.77 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 27.77 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 260 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Release date | April 2021 | August 2018 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Workstation Ampere |

| Launch MSRP | not recorded | 9,999 USD |