Quadro RTX A6000 vs Quadro 3000M

Place in the ranking	817	37
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.20	10.30
Power efficiency	2.38	13.50
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF104	GA102
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	5 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$398.96	$4,649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX A6000 has 5050% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.

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	240	10752
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1410 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1800 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	300 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.00	604.8
Floating-point processing power	0.432 TFLOPS	38.71 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	112
TMUs	40	336
Tensor Cores	no data	336
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	84

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).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	48 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 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

No outputs

4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	2.1	8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

Quadro 3000M 2.58

RTX A6000 58.58
+2171%

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.

Quadro 3000M 995

RTX A6000 22600
+2171%

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.

Quadro 3000M 1539

RTX A6000 50957
+3211%

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.

Quadro 3000M 7941

RTX A6000 89510
+1027%

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	44 −295%	174 +295%
1440p	5−6 −2600%	135 +2600%
4K	4−5 −2625%	109 +2625%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.07	26.72
1440p	79.79	34.44
4K	99.74	42.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−1380%

70−75
+1380%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1000%	85−90 +1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	70−75
Battlefield 5	3−4 −4333%	130−140 +4333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1300%	80−85 +1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1380%	70−75 +1380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1680%	85−90 +1680%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1357%	100−110 +1357%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1415%	190−200 +1415%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1171%	85−90 +1171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −755%	170−180 +755%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −6450%	130−140 +6450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1483%	95−100 +1483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −1300%	150−160 +1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −247%	130−140 +247%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1000%	85−90 +1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	70−75
Battlefield 5	3−4 −4333%	130−140 +4333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1300%	80−85 +1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1380%	70−75 +1380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1680%	85−90 +1680%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1357%	100−110 +1357%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1415%	190−200 +1415%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1171%	85−90 +1171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −755%	170−180 +755%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −6450%	130−140 +6450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1483%	95−100 +1483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −2564%	293 +2564%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −562%	85−90 +562%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −247%	130−140 +247%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1000%	85−90 +1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	70−75
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1300%	80−85 +1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1380%	70−75 +1380%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1680%	85−90 +1680%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1415%	190−200 +1415%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1171%	85−90 +1171%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −1020%	224 +1020%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −2518%	288 +2518%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1285%	180 +1285%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −247%	130−140 +247%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−1483%

95−100
+1483%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −1925%	80−85 +1925%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1500%	60−65 +1500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2350%	45−50 +2350%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3300%	30−35 +3300%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1500%	45−50 +1500%
Hitman 3	8−9 −588%	55−60 +588%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −2900%	210 +2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −3000%	60−65 +3000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −1220%	190−200 +1220%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−1100%

70−75
+1100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −4100%	40−45 +4100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1350%	27−30 +1350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −2600%	27−30 +2600%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	21−24

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−825%

35−40
+825%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Metro Exodus	63 +0%	63 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	247 +0%	247 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Metro Exodus	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	146 +0%	146 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	149 +0%	149 +0%

This is how Quadro 3000M and RTX A6000 compete in popular games:

RTX A6000 is 295% faster in 1080p
RTX A6000 is 2600% faster in 1440p
RTX A6000 is 2625% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX A6000 is 6450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX A6000 is ahead in 57 tests (84%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.58	58.58
Recency	22 February 2011	5 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	48 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	300 Watt

Quadro 3000M has 300% lower power consumption.

RTX A6000, on the other hand, has a 2170.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation 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.