Riva TNT2 vs Quadro RTX A6000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX A6000 with Riva TNT2, including specs and performance data.

RTX A6000
2020
48 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
58.64
+586300%

RTX A6000 outperforms Riva TNT2 by a whopping 586300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking391524
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.12no data
Power efficiency13.46no data
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)Fahrenheit (1998−2000)
GPU code nameGA102NV5
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date5 October 2020 (4 years ago)12 October 1999 (25 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,649 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 cores10752no data
Core clock speed1410 MHz125 MHz
Boost clock speed1800 MHzno data
Number of transistors28,300 million15 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm250 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Wattno data
Texture fill rate604.80.25
Floating-point processing power38.71 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1122
TMUs3362
Tensor Cores336no data
Ray Tracing Cores84no data

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 4.0 x16AGP 4x
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors8-pin EPSNone

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 typeGDDR6SDR
Maximum RAM amount48 GB16 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz150 MHz
Memory bandwidth768.0 GB/s2.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 1.4a1x VGA

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)6.0
Shader Model6.7no data
OpenGL4.61.2
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA8.6-

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 A6000 58.64
+586300%
Riva TNT2 0.01

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 A6000 22535
+751067%
Riva TNT2 3

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 HD175-0−1
1440p129-0−1
4K114-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p26.57no data
1440p36.04no data
4K40.78no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 300 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 140−150 0−1
Metro Exodus 66 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110 0−1
Valorant 260−270 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Dota 2 132 0−1
Far Cry 5 78 0−1
Fortnite 230−240 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 293 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 140−150 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 128 0−1
Metro Exodus 78 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180 0−1
Valorant 260−270 0−1
World of Tanks 270−280 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 130−140 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140 0−1
Dota 2 131 0−1
Far Cry 5 110−120 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 288 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 140−150 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 210−220 0−1
Valorant 260−270 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Dota 2 96 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 96 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 0−1
World of Tanks 350−400 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Far Cry 5 160−170 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 247 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 100−110 0−1
Metro Exodus 63 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130 0−1
Valorant 220−230 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Dota 2 155 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 155 0−1
Metro Exodus 70 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 155 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1
Dota 2 128 0−1
Far Cry 5 100−110 0−1
Fortnite 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 149 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 60−65 0−1
Valorant 120−130 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 58.64 0.01
Recency 5 October 2020 12 October 1999
Maximum RAM amount 48 GB 16 MB
Chip lithography 8 nm 250 nm

RTX A6000 has a 586300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 20 years, a 307100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 3025% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Riva TNT2 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro RTX A6000 is a workstation graphics card while Riva TNT2 is a desktop one.


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 A6000
Quadro RTX A6000
NVIDIA Riva TNT2
Riva TNT2

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 479 votes

Rate Quadro RTX A6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 20 votes

Rate Riva TNT2 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.