GeForce RTX 5060 vs Quadro RTX A6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX A6000 with GeForce RTX 5060, including specs and performance data.
RTX A6000 outperforms RTX 5060 by a whopping 179% 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 | 49 | 286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.99 | 30.83 |
| Power efficiency | 13.28 | 9.84 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GA102 | GB206 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 October 2020 (4 years ago) | 19 May 2025 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,649 | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5060 has 157% better value for money than RTX A6000.
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 | 10752 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 1410 MHz | 2280 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1800 MHz | 2497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 28,300 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 145 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 604.8 | 299.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 38.71 TFLOPS | 19.18 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 112 | 48 |
| TMUs | 336 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | 336 | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 84 | 30 |
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 4.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 8-pin EPS | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | + | + |
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.
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 | 158
+187%
| 55−60
−187%
|
| 1440p | 123
+208%
| 40−45
−208%
|
| 4K | 106
+203%
| 35−40
−203%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 29.42
−441%
| 5.44
+441%
|
| 1440p | 37.80
−406%
| 7.48
+406%
|
| 4K | 43.86
−413%
| 8.54
+413%
|
- RTX 5060 has 441% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5060 has 406% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5060 has 413% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+151%
|
110−120
−151%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+219%
|
40−45
−219%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 130−140
+241%
|
35−40
−241%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+93.9%
|
80−85
−93.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+151%
|
110−120
−151%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+219%
|
40−45
−219%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
−26.9%
|
65−70
+26.9%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+135%
|
100−110
−135%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+164%
|
80−85
−164%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+159%
|
60−65
−159%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 130−140
+241%
|
35−40
−241%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+135%
|
75−80
−135%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+105%
|
140−150
−105%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+93.9%
|
80−85
−93.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290
+151%
|
110−120
−151%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+18.3%
|
230−240
−18.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+219%
|
40−45
−219%
|
| Dota 2 | 139
+209%
|
45−50
−209%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
−24.5%
|
65−70
+24.5%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+135%
|
100−110
−135%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+164%
|
80−85
−164%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+159%
|
60−65
−159%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 128
+73%
|
70−75
−73%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 130−140
+241%
|
35−40
−241%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+128%
|
40−45
−128%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+135%
|
75−80
−135%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 307
+448%
|
55−60
−448%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+105%
|
140−150
−105%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+93.9%
|
80−85
−93.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 130−140
+219%
|
40−45
−219%
|
| Dota 2 | 131
+191%
|
45−50
−191%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
−26.9%
|
65−70
+26.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+164%
|
80−85
−164%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 130−140
+241%
|
35−40
−241%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+135%
|
75−80
−135%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 180
+221%
|
55−60
−221%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+105%
|
140−150
−105%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 240−250
+135%
|
100−110
−135%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+280%
|
40−45
−280%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+177%
|
140−150
−177%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 96
+182%
|
30−35
−182%
|
| Metro Exodus | 84
+223%
|
24−27
−223%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.2%
|
170−180
−1.2%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+84.8%
|
180−190
−84.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+138%
|
55−60
−138%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+284%
|
18−20
−284%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+15.6%
|
45−50
−15.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+246%
|
50−55
−246%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+275%
|
30−35
−275%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+228%
|
45−50
−228%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 155
+331%
|
35−40
−331%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+338%
|
16−18
−338%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 146
+403%
|
27−30
−403%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+174%
|
110−120
−174%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+210%
|
30−33
−210%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+294%
|
18−20
−294%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 128
+184%
|
45−50
−184%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+127%
|
21−24
−127%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+254%
|
35−40
−254%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+217%
|
12−14
−217%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+375%
|
20−22
−375%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+276%
|
21−24
−276%
|
This is how RTX A6000 and RTX 5060 compete in popular games:
- RTX A6000 is 187% faster in 1080p
- RTX A6000 is 208% faster in 1440p
- RTX A6000 is 203% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A6000 is 448% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 5060 is 27% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A6000 is ahead in 60 tests (95%)
- RTX 5060 is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 55.41 | 19.85 |
| Recency | 5 October 2020 | 19 May 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 145 Watt |
RTX A6000 has a 179.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 5060, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 60% more advanced lithography process, and 106.9% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 5060 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX A6000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5060 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
