NVIDIA Quadro K6000 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile wins both recorded head-to-head comparisons by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 against the Quadro K6000’s 23,749, a 309.2% advantage. The gap narrows somewhat in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A4000 Mobile posts 73,002 versus 25,409, still a 187.3% lead. These are not marginal gains; they represent generational leaps in compute throughput.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The RTX A4000 Mobile averages 21,379 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro K6000 averages 19,030. This 12.3% overall advantage places the A4000 Mobile at the 66th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the K6000’s 63rd percentile. The A4000 Mobile’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (0.7% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (1.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (1.2% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (1.6% ahead). The K6000’s nearest rivals are clustered far tighter: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (0% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Tesla K20m (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (0.4% ahead). This clustering shows the K6000 sits in a crowded performance band, while the A4000 Mobile has more separation from its immediate competitors.

In DirectX and compute workloads recorded in the database, the A4000 Mobile shows a broad portfolio: Passmark DirectX 10 at 105, DirectX 11 at 127, DirectX 12 at 66, DirectX 9 at 157, G2D at 585, G3D at 14,796, and GPU compute at 6,394. The K6000 has no recorded Passmark scores in the database, so direct comparisons in those specific APIs are unavailable. However, the two head-to-head results that do exist are unambiguous: the A4000 Mobile is the faster card in every shared benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The RTX A4000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It packs 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro K6000 uses the GK110B chip on Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 7,080 million transistors on a larger 561 mm² die, yielding a much lower density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The A4000 Mobile achieves more than three times the transistor density, a direct result of the process node advancement.

Compute resources differ sharply. The A4000 Mobile has 5,120 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 render output units. It also includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, features absent from the K6000 entirely. The K6000 counters with 2,880 shading units, 240 TMUs, and only 48 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the K6000 has more TMUs, but this does not compensate for the overall architectural gap. The A4000 Mobile delivers 17.20 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K6000 manages only 5.196 TFLOPS, a 3.3x difference. The A4000 Mobile also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (17.20 TFLOPS), while the K6000 has no recorded FP16 capability. Pixel rate favors the A4000 Mobile at 134.4 GPixel/s versus 54.12 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 268.8 GTexel/s versus 216.5 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations also diverge. The A4000 Mobile uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 12 Gbps effective memory speed. The K6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, but only achieves 288.4 GB/s due to its 6 Gbps effective memory speed. The K6000 has more capacity and a wider bus, yet lower bandwidth. The A4000 Mobile’s smaller but faster memory subsystem wins on throughput.

Power and physical specs tell the efficiency story. The A4000 Mobile has a TDP of 115 W and uses no power connectors, fitting a mobile form factor. The K6000 draws 225 W, requires dual-slot cooling and 2x 6-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The K6000 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the A4000 Mobile’s dimensions are portable-device dependent. The A4000 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the K6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. API support also differs: the A4000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K6000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile averages 21,379 across all recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 averages 19,030, a difference of about 12.3%.

Q: How much faster is the A4000 Mobile in OpenCL?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the A4000 Mobile scores 97,178 against the K6000’s 23,749, which is 309.2% higher.

Q: Does the Quadro K6000 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The K6000 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A4000 Mobile includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The A4000 Mobile delivers 384.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The K6000 delivers 288.4 GB/s from 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile has a transistor density of 44.4 million per mm², versus 12.6 million per mm² for the Quadro K6000. The A4000 Mobile’s 8 nm Samsung process enables this density advantage.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The A4000 Mobile has a TDP of 115 W with no power connectors. The K6000 has a TDP of 225 W and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors with a 550 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for compute-oriented workloads: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by 309.2% and 187.3%, nearly triples the FP32 throughput (17.20 TFLOPS versus 5.196 TFLOPS), and offers more than 30% higher memory bandwidth (384.0 GB/s versus 288.4 GB/s). The A4000 Mobile also brings modern features that the K6000 lacks entirely: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, FP16 support, PCIe 4.0, and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its higher percentile ranking (66th versus 63rd) and higher average score (21,379 versus 19,030) confirm the overall advantage.

However, the K6000 is not without merit in specific contexts. It offers 12 GB of memory versus 8 GB, which could matter for workloads that require large working sets without needing maximum bandwidth. Its 384-bit bus provides a wider memory path, though at lower effective bandwidth. The K6000 also has a higher TMU count (240 versus 160), which benefits certain texture-heavy operations. For users constrained to a desktop workstation with available power and space, the K6000’s dual-slot design and 2x 6-pin connectors are acceptable, and its launch MSRP of 5,265 USD reflects its original professional positioning.

The practical choice depends on the workload. For any modern compute, rendering, or ray-traced task, the A4000 Mobile is the clear winner. For legacy compatibility or capacity-limited tasks where 12 GB of VRAM is essential, the K6000 remains functional but significantly slower. The recorded data shows no scenario where the K6000 outperforms the A4000 Mobile in a shared benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro K6000 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | Kepler |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 7,080 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 561 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1140 MHz | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1680 MHz | 902 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 12 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 288.4 GB/s |

| Effective Memory Speed | 12 Gbps | 6 Gbps |

| Shading Units | 5120 | 2880 |

| TMUs | 160 | 240 |

| ROPs | 80 | 48 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 160 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 17.20 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 17.20 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| Pixel Rate | 134.4 GPixel/s | 54.12 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 268.8 GTexel/s | 216.5 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 115 W | 225 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 550 W |

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

| Slot Width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Length | Portable dependent | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | Portable dependent | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2013-07-22 |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 Mobile wins in every scenario where raw compute performance matters. Its 309.2% OpenCL advantage and 187.3% Vulkan advantage make it the choice for GPU-accelerated workloads, including rendering, simulation, and machine learning inference. The presence of tensor cores and ray tracing cores opens capabilities entirely unavailable on the K6000. The A4000 Mobile’s higher pixel rate (134.4 GPixel/s) and texture rate (268.8 GTexel/s) also favor graphics-intensive tasks. Its lower TDP (115 W versus 225 W) makes it suitable for mobile workstations, and its PCIe 4.0 interface provides double the bandwidth of the K6000’s PCIe 3.0.

The Quadro K6000 wins on memory capacity and bus width. Its 12 GB frame buffer exceeds the A4000 Mobile’s 8 GB, which may benefit applications that load very large datasets or textures into VRAM. The 384-bit memory bus is wider than the A4000 Mobile’s 256-bit bus, though the K6000’s lower effective memory speed (6 Gbps versus 12 Gbps) negates much of that advantage. The K6000 also has more TMUs (240 versus 160), which could marginally help in texture-heavy legacy workloads. For users with an older PCIe 3.0 platform, the K6000 requires no platform upgrade, and its dual-slot desktop form factor with standard 2x 6-pin power connectors is straightforward to install in a workstation.

The database records no benchmark where the K6000 beats the A4000 Mobile. The K6000’s strengths are purely capacity-based, not performance-based. Its 63rd percentile ranking and average score of 19,030 place it in the same performance class as modern mid-range mobile GPUs, but the A4000 Mobile sits above that class. For any new deployment or upgrade decision, the RTX A4000 Mobile is the data-backed choice. The K6000 remains a viable option only for tasks that specifically require 12 GB of VRAM and can tolerate significantly lower compute throughput.