Quadro RTX A6000 vs GeForce GTX 670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 670 with Quadro RTX A6000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A6000 outperforms GTX 670 by a whopping 326% 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 | 424 | 54 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.06 | 4.88 |
| Power efficiency | 5.79 | 13.96 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 5 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $4,649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX A6000 has 59% better value for money than GTX 670.
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 | 1344 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 109.8 | 604.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.634 TFLOPS | 38.71 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 |
| TMUs | 112 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 10.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 8-pin EPS |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
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 | 35−40
−351%
| 158
+351%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
−356%
| 123
+356%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−342%
| 106
+342%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.40
+158%
| 29.42
−158%
|
| 1440p | 14.78
+156%
| 37.80
−156%
|
| 4K | 16.63
+164%
| 43.86
−164%
|
- GTX 670 has 158% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 670 has 156% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 670 has 164% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 307
+0%
|
307
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180
+0%
|
180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 155
+0%
|
155
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how GTX 670 and RTX A6000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A6000 is 351% faster in 1080p
- RTX A6000 is 356% faster in 1440p
- RTX A6000 is 342% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.70 | 54.05 |
| Recency | 10 May 2012 | 5 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 300 Watt |
GTX 670 has 76.5% lower power consumption.
RTX A6000, on the other hand, has a 325.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 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 GeForce GTX 670 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 670 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro RTX A6000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
