NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 vs NVIDIA RTX A6000, AI & Machine Learning Comparison
NVIDIA RTX A6000 wins 21 of 21 benchmarks, averaging 155.4% faster.
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000's numbers are anchored estimates calibrated against our measured cards, pending first-party measurement. Treat small gaps as ties.
What the numbers say
The gap is widest in FLUX.1 dev, where NVIDIA RTX A6000 leads by 1165% (0.171 vs 2.164 images/min); the closest fight is Nemotron Nano 9B v2 (41% apart).
Benchmark results head-to-head
| Benchmark | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MiniCPM5 2B tok/s | 181.19 | 270.65 | -33% |
| LFM2.5 2.6B tok/s | 192.62 | 279.08 | -31% |
| Granite 4.1 3B tok/s | 138.18 | 202.59 | -32% |
| Nemotron 3 Nano 4B tok/s | 134.78 | 190.78 | -29% |
| Qwen3 4B tok/s | 127.01 | 184.34 | -31% |
| DeepSeek Coder 7B Instruct v1.5 tok/s | 95.87 | 140.44 | -32% |
| Llama 3 8B tok/s | 84.49 | 124.54 | -32% |
| Llama 3.1 8B tok/s | 84.68 | 124.87 | -32% |
| Qwen3 8B tok/s | 81.7 | 120.24 | -32% |
| Nemotron Nano 9B v2 tok/s | 64.28 | 90.62 | -29% |
| Ornith 1.5 9B tok/s | 72.54 | 106.49 | -32% |
| Gemma 4 12B tok/s | 51.52 | 75.82 | -32% |
| Qwen2.5-Coder 14B tok/s | 46.74 | 68.51 | -32% |
| Qwen3 14B tok/s | 47.81 | 70.24 | -32% |
| Gemma 4 26B A4B tok/s | 96.49 | 138.08 | -30% |
| Qwen3 30B A3B tok/s | 127.94 | 187.52 | -32% |
| Qwen3 32B tok/s | 21.98 | 32.18 | -32% |
| Llama 3.3 70B tok/s | 0 | 15.73 | n/a |
| Stable Diffusion XL images/min | 6.18 | 10.02 | -38% |
| Z-Image Turbo images/min | 0.45 | 5.4 | -92% |
| FLUX.1 dev images/min | 0.171 | 2.164 | -92% |
Whole-job comparison
How long each card takes to finish a complete pipeline, not just one model. NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is faster on 0 of 2; NVIDIA RTX A6000 on 2.
| Workflow | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | Difference | Cost per run |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full codebase review | 21.4 min | 14.6 min | NVIDIA RTX A6000 1.47x faster | $0.091 vs $0.080 |
| 24-frame storyboard | 54.9 min | 7.1 min | NVIDIA RTX A6000 7.78x faster | $0.233 vs $0.039 |
Renting by the hour, NVIDIA RTX A6000 finishes 2 of 2 cheaper. The quicker card is not automatically the cheaper way to get the work done.
Cost to rent
| Card | Per hour |
|---|---|
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | $0.255 |
| NVIDIA RTX A6000 | $0.330 |
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is 1.29x cheaper per hour. Cheapest on-demand rate we see across RunPod and Vast.
Specifications compared
| NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM | 48GB | 48GB |
| Transistors | 18,600M | 28,300M |
| Die size | 754 mm² | 628.4 mm² |
| Process node | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Transistor density | 24.7 M/mm² | 45 M/mm² |
| Architecture | Turing (TU102) | Ampere |
| Memory bandwidth | 672 GB/s | 768 GB/s |
| Boost clock | 1,770 MHz | 1,860 MHz |
| TDP | 260 W | 300 W |
| Launch MSRP | $9,999 | $4,650 |
| Release | 2018-08-27 | 2020-10-05 |
FAQ
- Which is better for ai & machine learning: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 or NVIDIA RTX A6000?
- NVIDIA RTX A6000 performs better for ai & machine learning, winning 21 of 21 benchmarks in our suite with an average 155.4% advantage.
- What are the main hardware differences between NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and NVIDIA RTX A6000?
- NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 has 48GB VRAM and a 260W TDP, while NVIDIA RTX A6000 has 48GB VRAM and a 300W TDP.
- Where is the biggest performance difference between NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and NVIDIA RTX A6000?
- FLUX.1 dev: NVIDIA RTX A6000 leads by roughly 199% (0.171 vs 2.164 images/min) in our testing.
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 full review · NVIDIA RTX A6000 full review · All AI & Machine Learning rankings