NVIDIA RTX 6000D vs NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes one direct comparison between the NVIDIA RTX 6000D and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 6000D scores 388,405, while the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 87,454. This gives the RTX 6000D a 344.1% advantage, making it the clear winner in this specific workload.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces this gap. The RTX 6000D posts an average score of 195,964, which places it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, by contrast, has an average score of 114,395, sitting in the 95th percentile. The difference in raw average scores is substantial, roughly 71% higher for the RTX 6000D, though the percentile ranks show both are high-end parts relative to the broader database.

When looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the RTX 6000D’s position is competitive but not overwhelming. It outperforms the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB by 0.8% and the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB by 4.7%, while trailing the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB by 5.4%. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 6.1% behind the RTX 6000D. These deltas show that the RTX 6000D sits within a tight cluster of high-end accelerators, where a few percentage points separate the top contenders.

The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, despite its age, remains competitive in its own bracket. It leads the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 0.4% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 by 3.3%, but falls behind the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 2.3% and the NVIDIA GB10 by 2.6%. The data indicates that the V100 SXM2 16 GB is still a viable performer against mid-range modern cards, though it cannot match the absolute throughput of the RTX 6000D.

In terms of benchmark wins, the head-to-head table shows a single win for the RTX 6000D and zero for the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB. This is a lopsided result, but it reflects only one test. The Geekbench OpenCL score is a compute-oriented measure, and the RTX 6000D’s architectural advantages shine there, as detailed in the next section.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of NVIDIA’s design philosophy. The RTX 6000D uses the GB202 chip, built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB uses the GV100 chip, based on the older Volta architecture, on a 12 nm process. This process node difference is significant: the RTX 6000D packs 92,200 million transistors into a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB has 21,100 million transistors on a larger 815 mm² die, giving a density of just 25.9 million per square millimeter. The RTX 6000D achieves over four times the transistor density, which directly contributes to its higher compute throughput.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The RTX 6000D comes with 84 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 448-bit bus, delivering 1.40 TB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB has 16 GB of HBM2 on a much wider 4096-bit bus, but its bandwidth is lower at 897.0 GB/s. The RTX 6000D has nearly 60% more memory bandwidth and over five times the capacity, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution workloads.

Compute resources also differ by an order of magnitude. The RTX 6000D has 19,968 shading units, 624 texture mapping units, and 192 raster output units. It also includes 156 ray tracing cores and 624 tensor cores. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with 640 tensor cores but no dedicated ray tracing cores. The FP32 performance reflects this: the RTX 6000D delivers 97.04 TFLOPS, while the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB manages 15.67 TFLOPS. For FP16, the RTX 6000D again hits 97.04 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB reaches 31.33 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RTX 6000D has a base clock of 1992 MHz and a boost clock of 2430 MHz, with memory clocked at 1560 MHz (25 Gbps effective). The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB runs at 1312 MHz base and 1530 MHz boost, with memory at 876 MHz (1752 Mbps effective). The RTX 6000D’s higher clocks, combined with its newer architecture, produce pixel rates of 466.6 GPixel/s and texture rates of 1,516.3 GTexel/s, versus 195.8 GPixel/s and 489.6 GTexel/s for the Tesla part.

Power and connectivity also differ. The RTX 6000D has a 600 W TDP, requires a 1000 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 16-pin power connector. It is a dual-slot PCIe 5.0 x16 card with four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB is an SXM module with a 250 W TDP, no power connectors (power comes through the module socket), a 600 W suggested PSU, and no display outputs. It uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RTX 6000D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1); both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 6000D is the outright winner in compute-heavy tasks. Its FP32 performance of 97.04 TFLOPS is more than six times that of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, making it suited for scientific simulation, AI training, and rendering workloads that rely on raw shader throughput. The 84 GB memory capacity and 1.40 TB/s bandwidth allow it to handle large models and datasets without spilling to system memory, which is critical for modern deep learning and in-memory analytics. The inclusion of ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate also makes it viable for real-time visualization and graphics tasks, something the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB cannot do.

The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, despite its age, still has niches where it remains relevant. Its 640 tensor cores, while fewer than the RTX 6000D’s 624, are paired with Volta’s tensor core design, which was a first-generation implementation. In legacy workloads that were optimized for Volta’s specific instruction set, the V100 SXM2 16 GB can still be competitive, as shown by its 95th percentile rank. Its lower 250 W TDP makes it easier to integrate into dense server environments where power density is a concern. The SXM module form factor also allows for direct board integration, which can reduce latency in tightly coupled multi-GPU systems.

The benchmark data suggests a split based on workload type. For Geekbench OpenCL, which exercises general-purpose compute, the RTX 6000D dominates with a 344.1% lead. This test likely favors the newer architecture’s higher clock speeds and larger shader count. The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB has no recorded wins in the head-to-head table, so its advantages are inferred from its form factor and power profile rather than direct benchmark results. In practical terms, the V100 SXM2 16 GB might still be chosen for inference tasks on older software stacks that lack Blackwell optimizations, but the data does not provide explicit evidence for that.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward recommendation for most users. The NVIDIA RTX 6000D is the superior performer across the board, with a 344.1% lead in the only direct benchmark and a much higher average score (195,964 vs 114,395). It also has a 98th percentile rank versus 95th, indicating it sits higher in the overall GPU hierarchy. For anyone building a new workstation or server with current-generation workloads, the RTX 6000D is the clear choice.

The Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB is an end-of-life product, released in 2017, while the RTX 6000D launched in 2025. The V100 SXM2 16 GB is still functional and holds its own against mid-range modern cards like the RTX A5500 Mobile and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, but it cannot match the RTX 6000D in any recorded metric. Its 16 GB memory capacity is a hard limitation for modern AI models, and its lack of ray tracing cores makes it unsuitable for contemporary graphics work.

If you already own a Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB and your workloads are legacy or power-constrained, the data shows it is still a capable part. However, for new purchases or upgrades, the RTX 6000D offers more compute, more memory, and better connectivity, making it the rational pick. The RTX 6000D also has an active production status, ensuring availability, whereas the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB is end-of-life. The verdict is unambiguous: the RTX 6000D wins on performance, features, and future-proofing.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 6000D than the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 6000D scores 388,405 versus 87,454 for the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, a 344.1% advantage.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The RTX 6000D has 84 GB of GDDR7, while the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB has 16 GB of HBM2.

Q: Does the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB support ray tracing?

A: No, it has no ray tracing cores. The RTX 6000D includes 156 ray tracing cores.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 6000D has 122.9 million transistors per mm², versus 25.9M per mm² for the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB.

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

A: The RTX 6000D averages 195,964, while the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB averages 114,395.

Q: Are there any display outputs on the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB?

A: No, it has no display outputs. The RTX 6000D has four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 6000D | NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Volta |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1992 MHz | 1312 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2430 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Memory Size | 84 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 448 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.40 TB/s | 897.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19,968 | 5,120 |

| TMUs | 624 | 320 |

| ROPs | 192 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 156 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 624 | 640 |

| FP32 Performance | 97.04 TFLOPS | 15.67 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 97.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 31.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 466.6 GPixel/s | 195.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,516.3 GTexel/s | 489.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 600 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2025-07-13 | 2017-06-20 |