CPU
GPU
Quadro RTX 3000
Popular choices:
RTX A1000
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro RTX 3000
Performance Per Dollar RTX A1000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A1000 is significantly newer (2024 vs 2018). The RTX A1000 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro RTX 3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro RTX 3000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the RTX A1000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) | 🔮Strong Longevity (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The RTX A1000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $500 versus $891 for the Quadro RTX 3000, it costs 44% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 77.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+77.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($891) | ✅More affordable ($500) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro RTX 3000 and RTX A1000
Quadro RTX 3000
The Quadro RTX 3000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 13 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1395 MHz to 1770 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 260W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,858 points. Launch price was $9,999.
RTX A1000
The RTX A1000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 16 2024. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 727 MHz to 1462 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 18 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,814 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro RTX 3000 scores 10,858 and the RTX A1000 reaches 10,814 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro RTX 3000 is built on Turing while the RTX A1000 uses Ampere, both on 12 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 4,608 (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 2,304 (RTX A1000). Raw compute: 16.31 TFLOPS (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 6.737 TFLOPS (RTX A1000). Boost clocks: 1770 MHz vs 1462 MHz. Ray tracing: 72 RT cores (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 18 (RTX A1000) with 576 Tensor cores vs 72.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 10,858 | 10,814 |
| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |
| Process Node | 12 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 4608+100% | 2304 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 16.31 TFLOPS+142% | 6.737 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz+21% | 1462 MHz |
| ROPs | 96+200% | 32 |
| TMUs | 288+300% | 72 |
| L1 Cache | 4.5 MB+96% | 2.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+200% | 2 MB |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72+300% | 18 |
| Tensor Cores | 576+700% | 72 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
The Quadro RTX 3000 gives access to NVIDIA DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), widely regarding as the superior upscaling method for image quality. The RTX A1000 relies on FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution), which is capable but generally slightly noisier than DLSS in motion.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | DLSS 2.0 | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro RTX 3000 comes with 6 GB of VRAM, while the RTX A1000 has 8 GB. The RTX A1000 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 6 MB (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 2 MB (RTX A1000) — the Quadro RTX 3000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 6 GB | 8 GB+33% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit+100% | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB+200% | 2 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.1 (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 12.2 (RTX A1000). Vulkan: 1.0 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.0 | 1.3+30% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: 7th Gen NVENC (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 7th Gen NVENC (RTX A1000). Decoder: 5th Gen NVDEC vs 5th Gen NVDEC. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (Quadro RTX 3000) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (RTX A1000).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | 7th Gen NVENC | 7th Gen NVENC |
| Decoder | 5th Gen NVDEC | 5th Gen NVDEC |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro RTX 3000 draws 260W versus the RTX A1000's 50W — a 135.5% difference. The RTX A1000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 500W (RTX A1000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 163mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 260W | 50W-81% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 163mm |
| Height | 0mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 75°C-12% |
| Perf/Watt | 41.8 | 216.3+417% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro RTX 3000 launched at $800 MSRP and currently averages $891, while the RTX A1000 launched at $749 and now averages $500. The RTX A1000 costs 43.9% less ($391 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 12.2 (Quadro RTX 3000) vs 21.6 (RTX A1000) — the RTX A1000 offers 77% better value. The RTX A1000 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2018).
| Feature | Quadro RTX 3000 | RTX A1000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $800 | $749-6% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $891 | $500-44% |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.2 | 21.6+77% |
| Codename | TU102 | GA107 |
| Release | August 13 2018 | April 16 2024 |
| Ranking | #78 | #251 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro RTX 3000 and RTX A1000
