GeForce Go 6150 vs Quadro RTX A6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX A6000 with GeForce Go 6150, including specs and performance data.

RTX A6000
2020, $4,649
48 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
54.37
+108640%

RTX A6000 outperforms Go 6150 by a whopping 108640% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking551561
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.89no data
Power efficiency14.02no data
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2025)no data
GPU code nameGA102C51MV
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 October 2020 (5 years ago)1 February 2006 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,649 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores107523
Core clock speed1410 MHz1 MHz
Boost clock speed1800 MHz425 MHz
Number of transistors28,300 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology8 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Wattno data
Texture fill rate604.8no data
Floating-point processing power38.71 TFLOPSno data
ROPs112no data
TMUs336no data
Tensor Cores336no data
Ray Tracing Cores84no data
L1 Cache10.5 MBno data
L2 Cache6 MBno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors8-pin EPSno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6shared Memory
Maximum RAM amount48 GBno data
Memory bus width384 Bitno data
Memory clock speed2000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth768.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort 1.4ano data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)shared Memory
Shader Model6.7no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-
CUDA8.6-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RTX A6000 54.37
+108640%
Go 6150 0.05

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RTX A6000 22651
+119116%
Samples: 492
Go 6150 19
Samples: 122

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD158-0−1
1440p123-0−1
4K106-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p29.42no data
1440p37.80no data
4K43.86no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 280−290 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Palworld 150−160
+7550%
2−3
−7550%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 160−170 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 160−170 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 280−290 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Far Cry 5 52 0−1
Fortnite 240−250 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+10450%
2−3
−10450%
Palworld 150−160
+7550%
2−3
−7550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2371%
7−8
−2371%
Valorant 300−350
+1209%
21−24
−1209%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 160−170 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 280−290 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+2989%
9−10
−2989%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Dota 2 139
+1886%
7−8
−1886%
Far Cry 5 53 0−1
Fortnite 240−250 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+10450%
2−3
−10450%
Grand Theft Auto V 128 0−1
Metro Exodus 98 0−1
Palworld 150−160
+7550%
2−3
−7550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2371%
7−8
−2371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 307
+6040%
5−6
−6040%
Valorant 300−350
+1209%
21−24
−1209%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Dota 2 131
+1771%
7−8
−1771%
Far Cry 5 52 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+10450%
2−3
−10450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2371%
7−8
−2371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 180
+3500%
5−6
−3500%
Valorant 300−350
+1209%
21−24
−1209%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 240−250 0−1
Palworld 150−160
+7550%
2−3
−7550%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 150−160
+7800%
2−3
−7800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 96 0−1
Metro Exodus 84 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17400%
1−2
−17400%
Valorant 350−400 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Far Cry 5 52 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130
+12200%
1−2
−12200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 0−1
Palworld 90−95 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 70−75 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 155
+933%
14−16
−933%
Metro Exodus 70 0−1
Palworld 55−60 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 146 0−1
Valorant 300−350
+7675%
4−5
−7675%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1
Dota 2 128 0−1
Far Cry 5 50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 120−130 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+9400%
1−2
−9400%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Palworld 55−60 0−1

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A6000 is 17400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RTX A6000 surpassed Go 6150 in all 25 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 54.37 0.05
Recency 5 October 2020 1 February 2006
Chip lithography 8 nm 110 nm

RTX A6000 has a 108640% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1275% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6150 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX A6000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce Go 6150 is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 519 votes

Rate Quadro RTX A6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.7 11 votes

Rate GeForce Go 6150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX A6000 or GeForce Go 6150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.