NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB vs NVIDIA Tesla M60 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes one directly comparable benchmark between these two cards, and the result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998, while the NVIDIA Tesla M60 scores 29,506. That gives the RTX A2000 a 127.1% advantage, meaning it delivers more than double the raw compute performance in this workload. The delta is so large that it effectively separates the cards into entirely different performance tiers.

Looking at the broader database context, the RTX A2000 sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 34,154. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, just 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, 0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, 0.5% behind), and the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, 0.6% ahead). This clustering shows the RTX A2000 is essentially at parity with a set of well-known midrange-to-high-end cards, with all deltas within a single percentage point.

The Tesla M60, by contrast, sits at the 75th percentile with an average benchmark score of 30,490. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (30,476, 0% difference), the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (30,433, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6800 (30,095, 1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (29,945, 1.8% behind). The Tesla M60 actually leads this particular group, but the entire cluster is roughly 10% lower in average score than the RTX A2000's cluster. So while the Tesla M60 holds its own against its immediate rivals, it is clearly a step below the RTX A2000 in overall benchmark standing.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only direct comparison available, but it is consistent with the average scores. The RTX A2000 wins the only head-to-head test in the database, and the Tesla M60 records zero wins. No Vulkan score is available for the RTX A2000, and no Steel Nomad DX12 score is available for the Tesla M60, so those workloads cannot be compared directly from the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures separated by several generations. The RTX A2000 is built on Ampere, specifically the GA106 chip, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. The Tesla M60 uses Maxwell 2.0, built around the GM204 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This process difference is substantial: 8 nm versus 28 nm, which explains much of the efficiency and density gap between them.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell the story clearly. The RTX A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The Tesla M60 has 5,200 million transistors spread across a larger 398 mm² die, yielding just 13.1 million per mm². In other words, the RTX A2000 fits more than three times as many transistors per square millimeter, a direct consequence of the much newer manufacturing process.

The RTX A2000 features 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, 48 raster operation units, 26 ray tracing cores, and 104 tensor cores. The Tesla M60 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but it has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. Those features simply did not exist in the Maxwell architecture. The Tesla M60 does have more TMUs and ROPs than the RTX A2000, which helps its pixel and texture throughput, but the RTX A2000's raw shader count is over 60% higher.

Clock speeds are close. The RTX A2000 runs at a 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost, while the Tesla M60 runs at 557 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost. The RTX A2000 edges ahead in both figures, but the real performance difference comes from architecture and core count, not clocks. Memory technology also diverges: the RTX A2000 uses GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the Tesla M60 uses GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RTX A2000's memory bus is narrower at 192 bits versus 256 bits, but its bandwidth is still much higher at 288.0 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s, thanks to the faster memory standard.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads, as shown by the OpenCL result. Its 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the Tesla M60's 4.825 TFLOPS, a 65% gap. The RTX A2000 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 7.987 TFLOPS, while the Tesla M60 has no FP16 capability recorded. For any task involving general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, or modern graphics features like ray tracing and DLSS, the RTX A2000 is the clear choice.

The Tesla M60 does hold advantages in a few specific areas. Its pixel rate is 75.39 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s for the RTX A2000, and its texture rate is 150.8 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. These figures come from its higher ROP and TMU counts. For pure rasterization throughput in older workloads that heavily stress pixel fill and texture sampling, the Tesla M60 can keep up or even exceed the RTX A2000. However, the RTX A2000's superior shader performance and modern feature set make it the better all-round card.

The Tesla M60 also has a longer physical footprint at 267 mm versus 167 mm, but this is not a performance win; it is simply a larger board. The Tesla M60 has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for any workstation setup that requires direct monitor connection. The RTX A2000 includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, so it can drive displays natively. This is a fundamental usability difference, not just a spec sheet discrepancy.

Specification Differences

The RTX A2000 and Tesla M60 differ across nearly every major specification. The RTX A2000 offers 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Tesla M60 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A2000 has more memory, faster memory, and higher bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Power requirements are starkly different. The RTX A2000 has a TDP of 70 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Tesla M60 has a TDP of 300 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 700 W power supply. The RTX A2000 draws less than a quarter of the Tesla M60's power budget while delivering substantially higher compute performance.

The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 on the RTX A2000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Tesla M60. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) on the RTX A2000 versus 12 (12_1) on the Tesla M60. OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 are supported by both. The RTX A2000 has a dual-slot form factor at 167 mm length and 69 mm height, while the Tesla M60 is also dual-slot but 267 mm long with no recorded height. The RTX A2000 was released on 2021-11-22, while the Tesla M60 came out on 2015-08-29. Both are end-of-life products. The RTX A2000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 449 USD, while the Tesla M60 has no recorded MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The RTX A2000 dominates. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 66,998 versus 29,506 for the Tesla M60, a 127.1% advantage. Its FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS also exceeds the Tesla M60's 4.825 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the Tesla M60 have any performance advantages?

A: Yes, in pixel and texture throughput. The Tesla M60 records 75.39 GPixel/s and 150.8 GTexel/s, while the RTX A2000 records 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s. This comes from its higher ROP count of 64 and TMU count of 128.

Q: Can the Tesla M60 support modern graphics features?

A: No. The Tesla M60 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, and it only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The RTX A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 192-bit bus. The Tesla M60 has 8 GB of GDDR5 with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus. The RTX A2000 has both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Tesla M60 has a 300 W TDP, requires one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 700 W power supply.

Q: Which card can connect to displays?

A: Only the RTX A2000. It has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla M60 has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for direct monitor connection.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for nearly all use cases. The RTX A2000 is more than twice as fast in the only directly comparable benchmark, holds a higher percentile ranking (79th versus 75th), has more memory with higher bandwidth, supports modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores, draws dramatically less power, and can output to displays. The Tesla M60's only recorded advantages are in pixel and texture rates, which matter for a narrow set of legacy rasterization workloads.

Anyone building a workstation that needs GPU compute, modern graphics API support, or direct display output should choose the RTX A2000. Its 70 W TDP means it can run in systems with modest power supplies, and its compact 167 mm length fits in smaller chassis. The Tesla M60, by contrast, is a 300 W board with no display outputs, requiring a 700 W power supply and a larger physical footprint. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory and lack of FP16 support further limit its usefulness in contemporary workloads.

The Tesla M60 might still serve in a niche role: a headless compute accelerator for older CUDA workloads that rely heavily on texture and pixel throughput, where its 150.8 GTexel/s and 75.39 GPixel/s could be relevant. But even there, the RTX A2000's 124.8 GTexel/s is close, and its 127.1% OpenCL advantage makes it the better investment for anything beyond that narrow scenario. For the vast majority of buyers, the RTX A2000 is the only sensible pick from these two cards.