Quadro RTX A6000 vs Tegra 2
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 37 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.31 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.54 |
| Architecture | VLIW Vec4 (2010−2013) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Tegra 2 | GA102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 June 2010 (14 years ago) | 5 October 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | no data | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1.600 | 604.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 38.71 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 112 |
| TMUs | 4 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 768.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | ES 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 June 2010 | 5 October 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
Tegra 2 has 1400% lower power consumption.
RTX A6000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Tegra 2 and Quadro RTX A6000. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Tegra 2 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX A6000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
