A10G vs Quadro RTX 6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 6000 and A10G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX 6000
2018
24 GB GDDR6, 260 Watt
48.50

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking6968
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.33no data
Power efficiency12.7822.19
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTU102GA102
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$6,299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores46089216
Core clock speed1440 MHz1320 MHz
Boost clock speed1770 MHz1710 MHz
Number of transistors18,600 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)260 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate509.8492.5
Floating-point processing power16.31 TFLOPS31.52 TFLOPS
ROPs9696
TMUs288288
Tensor Cores576288
Ray Tracing Cores7272

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin8-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount24 GB12 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1563 MHz
Memory bandwidth672.0 GB/s600.2 GB/s

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
CUDA7.58.6

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.

RTX 6000 48.50
A10G 48.58
+0.2%

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.

RTX 6000 18691
A10G 18723
+0.2%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

RTX 6000 148896
A10G 162777
+9.3%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

RTX 6000 126987
A10G 143546
+13%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

RTX 6000 159550
A10G 187763
+17.7%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 48.50 48.58
Recency 13 August 2018 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 24 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 12 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 260 Watt 150 Watt

RTX 6000 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

A10G, on the other hand, has a 0.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 73.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 6000 and A10G.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000
Quadro RTX 6000
NVIDIA A10G
A10G

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 130 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 40 votes

Rate A10G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.