NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the RTX 2070 SUPER, which takes 9 of the 10 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The only exception is the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 1873 against 1651 for the GeForce, a delta of 11.9%. That is a notable single-test reversal, and it is the only workload in the database where the Quadro pulls ahead.

Outside of that DX12 result, the GeForce consistently leads, often by wide margins. In Passmark G3D, the GeForce scores 18169 versus 15117, a 20.2% advantage. The Passmark GPU Compute test shows a 22.4% lead, with scores of 7557 and 6176 respectively. Passmark DirectX 12 gives the GeForce its largest win of the entire comparison: 67 versus 52, a 28.8% gap. Passmark DirectX 10 follows closely at 22.2%, with 132 versus 108.

Compute-oriented and API-specific tests continue the pattern. Geekbench OpenCL puts the GeForce at 83358 against 74540 for the Quadro, an 11.8% lead. Geekbench Vulkan shows a 15% advantage, with 90637 versus 78844. The older DirectX 9 path favors the GeForce by a more modest 8.8%, scoring 223 to 205. Even the 2D-focused Passmark G2D test goes to the GeForce, 878 versus 846, a 3.8% edge.

The average benchmark score reinforces the trend. The GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER averages 20282 across the database, while the Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17789. That is a 14% difference in the aggregate. The GeForce also sits at the 65th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 61st percentile for the Quadro. The nearest rivals listed for the GeForce are all within 1.5% of its average score, with the Quadro M4000M at 20480 (1% lower), the RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (1.2% lower), and Intel Arc parts close behind. The Quadro, by contrast, sits near AMD Radeon HD 7790 (17666, 0.7% lower), the RTX 4060 (17639, 0.9% lower), and the Radeon 780M (17588, 1.1% lower). The data places the GeForce in a higher performance tier overall.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same TU104 chip, the same Turing architecture, the same 12 nm TSMC process, and the same 13,600 million transistor count. The die size is identical at 545 mm², and transistor density matches at 25.0M per mm². The shared foundation makes the performance differences purely a matter of configuration, clocks, and power allocation.

The shading engine is where the GeForce pulls ahead. It carries 2560 shading units versus 2304 on the Quadro, 160 texture mapping units versus 144, and both have 64 ROPs. The RT core count differs as well: 40 on the GeForce versus 36 on the Quadro. Tensor cores follow the same pattern, with 320 on the GeForce and 288 on the Quadro. These resource advantages translate directly into the FP32 and FP16 throughput figures. The GeForce delivers 9.062 TFLOPS FP32 and 18.12 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the Quadro manages 7.119 TFLOPS and 14.24 TFLOPS respectively.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The GeForce has a base clock of 1605 MHz and a boost of 1770 MHz. The Quadro starts much lower at 1005 MHz base and boosts to 1545 MHz. The memory clocks also differ: the GeForce runs at 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective, while the Quadro runs at 1625 MHz, 13 Gbps effective. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus, but the higher memory clock gives the GeForce 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 416.0 GB/s for the Quadro.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the clock and unit differences. The GeForce reaches 113.3 GPixel/s and 283.2 GTexel/s, while the Quadro is at 98.88 GPixel/s and 222.5 GTexel/s. Power draw is another separator: the GeForce has a 215 W TDP, the Quadro is rated at 160 W. The GeForce needs a dual-slot cooler and dual power connectors (1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin), with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The Quadro fits in a single-slot, uses a single 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

The display output configuration differs as well. The GeForce offers 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The Quadro drops the HDMI port and provides 3x DisplayPort 1.4a with 1x USB Type-C. Both support PCIe 3.0 x16, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan 1.4 in the API list. Physically, the GeForce is 267 mm long, 116 mm tall, 35 mm wide, and 35 mm thick, and 1.4 inches thick. The Quadro is shorter at 241 mm long, 111 mm tall, 9.5 inches long, 4.4 inches tall, and 9.5 inches long, with no width listed for the Quadro. The Quadro is 241 mm long; the GeForce is 267 mm long. The Quadro is 111 mm long; the GeForce is 116 mm long. The GeForce is 241 mm long.

The release timeline is also asymmetric despite the shared chip. The Quadro RTX 4000 launched on 2018-11-12, the GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER on 2019-07-08. The GeForce series predecessor is GeForce 10, successor GeForce 30. The Quadro series predecessor is Quadro Volta, successor Workstation Ampere. Both are end-of-life production status.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER wins 9 of the 10 head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins only one, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, by 11.9%.

Q: How large is the GeForce's lead in the aggregate?

A: The GeForce averages 20282 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Quadro averages 17789. That is a 14% difference in average score, and the GeForce sits at the 65th percentile versus the 61st percentile for the Quadro.

Q: Do both cards use the same underlying chip?

A: Yes. Both use the TU104 chip, Turing architecture, 12 nm TSMC process, 13,600 million transistors, and a 545 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 25.0M per mm².

Q: Why does the GeForce have higher throughput figures?

A: The GeForce has more execution resources and higher clocks. It carries 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 40 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores, compared to 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 36 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores on the Quadro. Its boost clock is 1770 MHz versus 1545 MHz.

Q: Is there a memory bandwidth difference?

A: Yes. Both have 8 GB GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus, but the GeForce runs memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for 448.0 GB/s, while the Quadro runs at 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) for 416.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro has a lower TDP at 160 W versus 215 W for the GeForce. It also uses a single-slot cooler, a single 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU, while the GeForce is dual-slot, uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, and suggests 550 W.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each card?

A: The GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER has a launch MSRP of 499 USD. The Quadro RTX 4000 has a launch MSRP of 899 USD.

Specification Differences

The two cards share a chip, architecture, process, transistor count, die size, memory size, memory type, memory bus width, ROP count, bus interface, and API support. The differences are listed below.

| Specification | GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER | Quadro RTX 4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Base clock | 1605 MHz | 1005 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1770 MHz | 1545 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective | 1625 MHz, 13 Gbps effective |

| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 416.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2560 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 160 | 144 |

| RT cores | 40 | 36 |

| Tensor cores | 320 | 288 |

| Pixel rate | 113.3 GPixel/s | 98.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 283.2 GTexel/s | 222.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 9.062 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 18.12 TFLOPS (2:1) | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 215 W | 160 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Display outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 116 mm (4.6 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 35 mm (1.4 inches) | not listed |

| Release date | 2019-07-08 | 2018-11-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 499 USD | 899 USD |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous on raw performance: the GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER is the faster card. It wins 9 of 10 head-to-head tests, leads by 20.2% in Passmark G3D and 22.4% in GPU compute, and holds a 14% advantage in average benchmark score. Its higher shading unit count, tensor core count, RT core count, and boost clock produce measurably higher fill rates and throughput in every recorded category except the single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test.

The Quadro RTX 4000 has a different set of strengths that the data supports. It is a single-slot card with a 160 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a 450 W suggested PSU. It also carries a launch MSRP of 899 USD, which is higher than the GeForce's 499 USD launch MSRP. For environments where physical footprint, power draw, and certification matter more than raw frame throughput, the Quadro's configuration is the more practical choice. Its one benchmark win in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 also suggests it is not without merit in specific DX12 workloads.

The choice comes down to priorities. The GeForce is the performance pick, with a 20% or greater lead in several tests and a lower launch MSRP. The Quadro is the workstation-oriented pick, with lower power requirements, a single-slot profile, and a higher launch MSRP that reflects its professional positioning rather than its benchmark standing. The data does not show a scenario where the Quadro overtakes the GeForce across the board; it shows a clear performance hierarchy with a clear efficiency trade-off.