Quadro RTX A6000 vs FirePro W2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W2100 and Quadro RTX A6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A6000 outperforms W2100 by a whopping 2424% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 911 | 54 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.88 |
| Power efficiency | 6.38 | 13.96 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Oland | GA102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (11 years ago) | 5 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 630 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 680 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 604.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4352 TFLOPS | 38.71 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 112 |
| TMUs | 20 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 10.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 6 MB |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 8-pin EPS |
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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 768.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 2x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| 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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 12
−1217%
| 158
+1217%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−2975%
| 123
+2975%
|
| 4K | 2
−5200%
| 106
+5200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 29.42 |
| 1440p | no data | 37.80 |
| 4K | no data | 43.86 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−2600%
|
130−140
+2600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−1829%
|
130−140
+1829%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−2600%
|
130−140
+2600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−1629%
|
120−130
+1629%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−767%
|
52
+767%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−2360%
|
240−250
+2360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1675%
|
210−220
+1675%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−1829%
|
130−140
+1829%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1350%
|
170−180
+1350%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−653%
|
300−350
+653%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−534%
|
270−280
+534%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−2600%
|
130−140
+2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−504%
|
139
+504%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−1629%
|
120−130
+1629%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−783%
|
53
+783%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
−2360%
|
240−250
+2360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1675%
|
210−220
+1675%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−3100%
|
128
+3100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−1829%
|
130−140
+1829%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2350%
|
98
+2350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1350%
|
170−180
+1350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−3738%
|
307
+3738%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−653%
|
300−350
+653%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−2600%
|
130−140
+2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−470%
|
131
+470%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
−1629%
|
120−130
+1629%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−767%
|
52
+767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1675%
|
210−220
+1675%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
−1829%
|
130−140
+1829%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1350%
|
170−180
+1350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2150%
|
180
+2150%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−653%
|
300−350
+653%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−2360%
|
240−250
+2360%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−3060%
|
150−160
+3060%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−2438%
|
400−450
+2438%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−733%
|
170−180
+733%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1941%
|
300−350
+1941%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−7200%
|
70−75
+7200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−2280%
|
110−120
+2280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1633%
|
52
+1633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3400%
|
170−180
+3400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−3350%
|
65−70
+3350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−3933%
|
120−130
+3933%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−3675%
|
150−160
+3675%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−933%
|
155
+933%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−2727%
|
300−350
+2727%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
−2460%
|
128
+2460%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50
+4900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−12400%
|
120−130
+12400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−3100%
|
95−100
+3100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2533%
|
75−80
+2533%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W2100 and RTX A6000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A6000 is 1217% faster in 1080p
- RTX A6000 is 2975% faster in 1440p
- RTX A6000 is 5200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A6000 is 12400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A6000 performs better in 58 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 10 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.16 | 54.51 |
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 5 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 300 Watt |
FirePro W2100 has 1053.8% lower power consumption.
RTX A6000, on the other hand, has a 2423.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
