Quadro RTX A6000 vs Quadro NVS 420
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 420 and Quadro RTX A6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A6000 outperforms NVS 420 by a whopping 16731% 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 | 1362 | 54 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 4.89 |
| Power efficiency | 0.62 | 13.97 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G98 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 20 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 5 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $131.43 | $4,649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX A6000 has 48800% better value for money than NVS 420.
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 | 8 ×2 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.400 ×2 | 604.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0224 TFLOPS ×2 | 38.71 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 ×2 | 112 |
| TMUs | 8 ×2 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 10.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 16 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB ×2 | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit ×2 | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s ×2 | 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 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.
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 | 0−1 | 158 |
| 1440p | 0−1 | 123 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 106 |
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 | 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%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.32 | 53.86 |
| Recency | 20 January 2009 | 5 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 300 Watt |
NVS 420 has 650% lower power consumption.
RTX A6000, on the other hand, has a 16731.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 19100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 420 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.
