Quadro RTX A6000 vs GeForce RTX 2070
Aggregated performance score
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 84 | 85 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 31.20 | 0.46 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2021) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | Turing TU106 | Ampere |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 August 2018 (5 years ago) | 5 October 2020 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $4,649 |
| Current price | $309 (0.6x MSRP) | $8932 (1.9x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 2070 has 6683% better value for money than RTX A6000.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 1410 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 233.3 | 625.0 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 8-pin EPS |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 16000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 768.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and Outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 4x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Supported Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.6 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro RTX A6000 outperforms GeForce RTX 2070 by 42% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro RTX A6000 outperforms GeForce RTX 2070 by 63% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro RTX A6000 outperforms GeForce RTX 2070 by 19% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce RTX 2070 outperforms Quadro RTX A6000 by 13% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Quadro RTX A6000 outperforms GeForce RTX 2070 by 16% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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 | 129
−23.3%
| 159
+23.3%
|
| 1440p | 87
−48.3%
| 129
+48.3%
|
| 4K | 61
−73.8%
| 106
+73.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 101
+38.4%
|
70−75
−38.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 87
+19.2%
|
70−75
−19.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 126
+6.8%
|
110−120
−6.8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 147
+28.9%
|
110−120
−28.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114
+119%
|
52
−119%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 103
+56.1%
|
66
−56.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 142
+12.7%
|
120−130
−12.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 164
+22.4%
|
130−140
−22.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 113
+25.6%
|
90−95
−25.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 117
+74.6%
|
65−70
−74.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 112
+8.7%
|
100−110
−8.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 107
+39%
|
75−80
−39%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 86
+17.8%
|
70−75
−17.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 73
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 117
−0.9%
|
110−120
+0.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 130
+14%
|
110−120
−14%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+108%
|
53
−108%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 99
+45.6%
|
68
−45.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+7.1%
|
120−130
−7.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 144
+7.5%
|
130−140
−7.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 88
−2.3%
|
90−95
+2.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 78
−25.6%
|
98
+25.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65
−3.1%
|
65−70
+3.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 105
+1.9%
|
100−110
−1.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 158
−94.3%
|
307
+94.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 94
+22.1%
|
75−80
−22.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 64
−14.1%
|
70−75
+14.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 65
−12.3%
|
70−75
+12.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 108
−9.3%
|
110−120
+9.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+100%
|
52
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 90
+38.5%
|
65
−38.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110
−14.5%
|
120−130
+14.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 87
−107%
|
180
+107%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 64
−20.3%
|
75−80
+20.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 87
+24.3%
|
70−75
−24.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 93
+17.7%
|
75−80
−17.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 61
+1.7%
|
60−65
−1.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50
−68%
|
84
+68%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 42
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 76
+16.9%
|
65−70
−16.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 52
+13%
|
45−50
−13%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 50
+6.4%
|
45−50
−6.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 88
+2.3%
|
85−90
−2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+69.2%
|
52
−69.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 82
+30.2%
|
63
−30.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+4.5%
|
85−90
−4.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 47
+23.7%
|
35−40
−23.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 51
+30.8%
|
35−40
−30.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 50
+16.3%
|
40−45
−16.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18
−83.3%
|
30−35
+83.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
−119%
|
70
+119%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+22.7%
|
21−24
−22.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 40
+17.6%
|
30−35
−17.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
−132%
|
146
+132%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 36
+24.1%
|
27−30
−24.1%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 31
+14.8%
|
27−30
−14.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+7.8%
|
50−55
−7.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
−2%
|
50
+2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 51
−23.5%
|
63
+23.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 63
+6.8%
|
55−60
−6.8%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27
+22.7%
|
21−24
−22.7%
|
This is how RTX 2070 and RTX A6000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A6000 is 23.3% faster than RTX 2070 in 1080p
- RTX A6000 is 48.3% faster than RTX 2070 in 1440p
- RTX A6000 is 73.8% faster than RTX 2070 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2070 is 119% faster than the RTX A6000.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A6000 is 132% faster than the RTX 2070.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2070 is ahead in 43 tests (63%)
- RTX A6000 is ahead in 17 tests (25%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (12%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 41.78 | 41.76 |
| Recency | 27 August 2018 | 5 October 2020 |
| Cost | $499 | $4649 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 300 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce RTX 2070 and Quadro RTX A6000.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX A6000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
