NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti takes 9 of the 10 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The only exception is a substantial victory for the Quadro RTX 4000 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 78,844 versus 47,784, a 65% advantage. This is the single largest delta in either direction across the entire comparison set.

Outside of Vulkan, the RTX 3060 Ti dominates across DirectX, compute, and 2D workloads. The widest gap appears in Passmark GPU Compute, where the RTX 3060 Ti scores 10,006 against the Quadro's 6,176, a 38.3% lead. This reflects a major difference in raw compute throughput, which aligns with the FP32 figures recorded: 16.20 TFLOPS for the RTX 3060 Ti versus 7.119 TFLOPS for the Quadro RTX 4000. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test also shows a decisive gap, with the RTX 3060 Ti at 2,626 versus 1,873, a 28.7% deficit for the Quadro.

DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 results follow the same pattern. In Passmark DirectX 11, the RTX 3060 Ti scores 163 versus 128, a 21.5% lead. In Passmark DirectX 12, the margin is even larger proportionally: 78 versus 52, a 33.3% advantage. The older DirectX 9 path shows a smaller but still consistent gap, 234 versus 205, a 12.4% lead for the RTX 3060 Ti. Passmark DirectX 10 lands in between at 132 versus 108, an 18.2% difference.

The 2D and OpenCL tests tell a similar story. Passmark G2D has the RTX 3060 Ti at 989 versus 846, a 14.5% lead. Geekbench OpenCL shows a closer race: 78,927 versus 74,540, a 5.6% advantage for the RTX 3060 Ti. That is the narrowest margin in the entire set, which is notable because OpenCL often behaves differently from vendor-optimized game paths. The overall Passmark G3D score, which aggregates many DirectX workloads, puts the RTX 3060 Ti at 20,349 versus 15,117, a 25.7% lead.

The average benchmark scores across all recorded tests also favor the RTX 3060 Ti, but by a much smaller amount than the individual DirectX results might suggest. The RTX 3060 Ti averages 16,129, while the Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17,789. The Quadro's huge Vulkan win and its OpenCL competitiveness pull its average above that of the RTX 3060 Ti, even though the RTX 3060 Ti wins nine of ten tests. This is an important nuance: the average score is not always a reliable proxy for per-test performance when one outlier is very large.

The percentile ranks are close. The Quadro RTX 4000 sits at the 61st percentile versus all GPUs, while the RTX 3060 Ti sits at the 59th percentile. Despite winning most head-to-head tests, the RTX 3060 Ti ranks slightly lower overall in the database, which suggests that its nearest rivals in the full dataset are positioned differently.

Looking at the nearest rival lists, the Quadro RTX 4000 is bracketed by the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (0.7% higher average), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (0.9% higher), the AMD Radeon 780M (1.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (1.4% higher). The RTX 3060 Ti, by contrast, is near the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (0.7% higher average), the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (1.4% lower), the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT (1.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon R9 370X (1.7% higher). These deltas are all under 2%, meaning both cards sit in a dense cluster of similar-average performers in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3060 Ti is the clear choice for DirectX-based workloads. It wins every DirectX test in the set: DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, with leads ranging from 12.4% to 33.3%. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result reinforces this, showing a 28.7% advantage. For gaming, real-time rendering, and any application that relies on the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set, the data strongly favors the RTX 3060 Ti. Its higher pixel rate (133.2 GPixel/s versus 98.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (253.1 GTexel/s versus 222.5 GTexel/s) support this outcome.

The RTX 3060 Ti also wins the compute-focused tests. Passmark GPU Compute shows a 38.3% lead, and Geekbench OpenCL shows a 5.6% lead. The FP32 throughput difference is the likely driver: 16.20 TFLOPS versus 7.119 TFLOPS. The FP16 numbers are also telling. The RTX 3060 Ti delivers 16.20 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro RTX 4000 delivers 14.24 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. For workloads that use FP16 natively, the RTX 3060 Ti has the advantage in both peak throughput and ratio efficiency.

The Quadro RTX 4000 wins only one test, but it wins it decisively. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,844 versus 47,784 is a 65% margin. This suggests that the Quadro's Turing architecture has a significantly more efficient Vulkan driver path or hardware scheduling implementation in this specific workload. For developers targeting Vulkan, particularly on Linux or in professional visualization stacks, this is a meaningful data point. The Quadro also has more tensor cores (288 versus 152), which may matter in certain AI inference workloads even if the raw FP32 compute is lower.

For 2D desktop work, the RTX 3060 Ti leads in Passmark G2D (989 versus 846). The Quadro's single-slot form factor and lower 160 W TDP versus 200 W may appeal to specific workstation builds, but the benchmark data does not show a performance advantage in any tested 2D path.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most benchmark tests in direct comparison?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti wins 9 of the 10 recorded head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins only the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 4000 scores 78,844 versus 47,784 for the RTX 3060 Ti, a 65% advantage. This is the largest single-test margin in either direction.

Q: What is the biggest win for the RTX 3060 Ti?

A: The largest margin for the RTX 3060 Ti is in Passmark GPU Compute, where it scores 10,006 versus 6,176, a 38.3% lead. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test shows a 28.7% lead, and Passmark G3D shows a 25.7% lead.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 has a higher average benchmark score at 17,789, versus 16,129 for the RTX 3060 Ti. This is driven largely by the Quadro's 65% Vulkan win and competitive OpenCL result.

Q: Are these cards close in overall GPU rankings?

A: Yes. The Quadro RTX 4000 sits at the 61st percentile versus all GPUs, while the RTX 3060 Ti sits at the 59th percentile. Both are within 2 percentage points of their nearest rivals in the database.

Q: Which card is better for DirectX 12 workloads?

A: The RTX 3060 Ti. It scores 78 in Passmark DirectX 12 versus 52 for the Quadro RTX 4000, a 33.3% lead. It also wins 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 28.7%.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The Quadro RTX 4000 is built on the TU104 chip using the Turing architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process. The RTX 3060 Ti uses the GA104 chip with the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process. The transistor counts differ: 13,600 million for the Quadro versus 17,400 million for the RTX 3060 Ti. Die size also differs, with the Quadro at 545 mm² and the RTX 3060 Ti at 392 mm². Transistor density is much higher on the RTX 3060 Ti at 44.4M/mm² versus 25.0M/mm².

Clock speeds show a meaningful gap. The Quadro runs at a 1005 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost. The RTX 3060 Ti runs at 1410 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) for the Quadro and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RTX 3060 Ti. Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but bandwidth differs: 416.0 GB/s for the Quadro versus 448.0 GB/s for the RTX 3060 Ti.

The compute unit counts diverge sharply. The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 3060 Ti has 4,864 shading units, 152 TMUs, and 80 ROPs. The Quadro has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The RTX 3060 Ti has 38 RT cores and 152 tensor cores. FP32 throughput is 7.119 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 16.20 TFLOPS for the RTX 3060 Ti. FP16 is 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Quadro and 16.20 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RTX 3060 Ti.

Power and physical specs also differ. The Quadro has a 160 W TDP, is single-slot, and uses a 1x 8-pin power connector. The RTX 3060 Ti has a 200 W TDP, is dual-slot, and uses a 1x 12-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 450 W for the Quadro and 550 W for the RTX 3060 Ti. The Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the RTX 3060 Ti uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the Quadro offers 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the RTX 3060 Ti offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Lengths are nearly identical (241 mm versus 242 mm), as are heights (111 mm versus 112 mm).

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Quadro RTX 4000 is a Turing-generation part, released in the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, and is the successor to Quadro Volta. The RTX 3060 Ti is an Ampere part from the GeForce 30 generation, succeeding GeForce 20. The Quadro's successor is Workstation Ampere, which shows the product line trajectory. The process nodes are from different foundries: TSMC at 12 nm for the Quadro, Samsung at 8 nm for the RTX 3060 Ti.

The core layouts reflect different design philosophies. The Quadro packs more tensor cores (288) than the RTX 3060 Ti (152), but the RTX 3060 Ti has more than double the shading units (4,864 versus 2,304) and more RT cores (38 versus 36). The FP16 ratio difference is critical: the Quadro runs FP16 at 2:1, meaning it halves the rate relative to FP32, while the RTX 3060 Ti runs at 1:1, giving it equal FP16 and FP32 throughput. This makes the RTX 3060 Ti more efficient for mixed-precision compute workloads.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature sets are identical on paper. The performance differences in the recorded benchmarks therefore come down to hardware design and driver behavior rather than API support gaps. The Quadro's Vulkan result suggests its driver stack is particularly well tuned for that API, while the RTX 3060 Ti's DirectX results reflect the Ampere architecture's raw throughput advantages.

The RTX 3060 Ti also has a higher pixel rate (133.2 GPixel/s versus 98.88 GPixel/s) and texture rate (253.1 GTexel/s versus 222.5 GTexel/s). These metrics, combined with the larger shading unit count, explain why the RTX 3060 Ti leads in nearly every rasterization-heavy test. The Quadro's advantages are narrower: more tensor cores, a smaller die on a larger process, and a lower power envelope. Its 160 W TDP versus 200 W and single-slot design make it a distinct physical package, but the benchmark data does not show a corresponding performance benefit outside of Vulkan.