NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M represent two vastly different eras of GPU design. The former is a modern desktop behemoth built on a 5 nm process, while the latter is a 2012 mobile workstation part on 28 nm. The data shows a generational chasm in nearly every measurable specification, from transistor count to memory bandwidth. While both are end-of-life products, their benchmark results and architectural blueprints tell a story of technological progression that makes a direct comparison less a contest and more a study in contrasts.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has an average benchmark score of 6270, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5986. This places the newer card in the 36th percentile of all GPUs and the older one in the 34th percentile, a relatively narrow gap in overall percentile despite the massive architectural differences.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 offers a bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s using 16 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro K4000M provides only 89.60 GB/s with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 256-bit bus width, making the newer card over seven times faster in this metric.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density, and what does that indicate?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a transistor density of 125.3M per mm², compared to just 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro K4000M. This indicates a significantly more advanced manufacturing process, allowing far more transistors (76,300 million vs 3,540 million) to be packed into the newer chip.

Q: Are there any benchmark results shared between the two products?

A: No, the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a result for 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, while the Quadro K4000M has a result for geekbench_opencl, making direct performance comparisons impossible based on the provided data.

Q: What is the difference in their power consumption figures?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a TDP of 285 W and requires a 600 W power supply, whereas the Quadro K4000M is rated at only 100 W and uses no external power connectors. This reflects the desktop versus mobile design philosophies of the two eras.

Q: Which GPU supports more advanced APIs?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 wins decisively in every raw architectural category. Its shading unit count of 8448 dwarfs the Quadro K4000M’s 960, and its texture mapping units (264 vs 80) and raster output pipelines (96 vs 32) are similarly dominant. The newer card also features 66 ray tracing cores and 264 tensor cores, which are entirely absent from the Kepler-based Quadro. This makes the RTX card the clear choice for any modern workload involving real-time ray tracing, AI-accelerated tasks, or high-resolution texture rendering.

The Quadro K4000M, however, wins in the domain of power efficiency and form factor. Its 100 W TDP and MXM module design make it suitable for portable workstations, a category the 285 W, triple-slot RTX card simply cannot occupy. The older GPU also has a higher average score than its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, by 0.1%, showing it remains competitive within its own performance tier. Its mobile nature and lack of power connectors suggest it was built for sustained, low-power professional use in laptops, where the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102’s 310 mm length and triple-slot width would be impossible to accommodate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, which enables a transistor count of 76,300 million on a 609 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro K4000M uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, but with only 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. This represents a massive leap in density, from 12.0M per mm² to 125.3M per mm².

Feature-wise, the Ada Lovelace chip includes dedicated RT cores and tensor cores, which are completely missing from the Kepler GPU. The newer card also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, indicating hardware-level support for mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the older card tops out at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The memory subsystem differs as well: the RTX card uses GDDR6X with an effective speed of 21 Gbps, while the Quadro uses GDDR5 at 2.8 Gbps effective, a seven-fold difference in clock speed that translates directly to the bandwidth gap.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights the gulf between the two. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a base clock of 2340 MHz and a boost clock of 2610 MHz, while the Quadro K4000M is locked at 601 MHz for both. The newer card’s FP32 performance is 44.10 TFLOPS, compared to 1,153.9 GFLOPS (or roughly 1.15 TFLOPS) for the older one. Even the pixel rate and texture rate show the disparity: 250.6 GPixel/s and 689.0 GTexel/s for the RTX card versus 12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

The memory configurations differ in size and type but share a 256-bit bus width. The RTX card offers 16 GB of GDDR6X, while the Quadro offers 4 GB of GDDR5. The newer card requires a 600 W power supply and uses a single 16-pin connector, whereas the Quadro has no power connectors and a 100 W TDP. The RTX card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, reflecting its mobile origins. Finally, the RTX card has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, a figure not available for the Quadro.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

With no overlapping benchmark tests, a direct numeric comparison relies on the average scores and percentile rankings. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 scores 6270 on average, which ties it exactly with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at a 0% delta. It also sits 0.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282) and 0.8% above the AMD FirePro W600 (6223). This places it in a performance tier where the closest rivals are older or lower-end parts, suggesting that its raw compute power is not fully captured by the single 3DMark Steel Nomad test.

The Quadro K4000M’s average score of 5986 places it just 0.1% below the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987) and 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982). Its percentile ranking of 34 is remarkably close to the RTX card’s 36, despite the order-of-magnitude differences in specifications. This suggests that the 3DMark Steel Nomad test used for the RTX card may be more demanding or that the Geekbench OpenCL test for the Quadro is less so, making the percentile scores misleading when compared across different test suites.

The data implies that while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a higher raw average score, the practical performance gap in real-world applications could be even larger than the numbers suggest. The RTX card’s nearest rivals are all within a 1% delta, indicating a tightly clustered field at its performance level, whereas the Quadro’s rivals are similarly close, showing that it remains a viable option in its own niche. Without shared benchmarks, the only conclusion is that the RTX card is architecturally superior, but the percentile data hints that the Quadro holds its own in its specific workload environment.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the superior product for any modern, desktop-based workload. Its 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 672.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, and support for ray tracing and tensor cores make it a formidable tool for gaming, content creation, and scientific computing. The 285 W TDP and triple-slot design are a reasonable trade-off for that level of performance, and the 16 GB GDDR6X frame buffer ensures future-proofing for high-resolution textures. Anyone building a workstation or gaming rig should pick it without hesitation.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, on the other hand, is a product of its time. Its 100 W TDP, MXM module form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable only for legacy mobile workstations. While its percentile ranking of 34 is respectable given its age, its 4 GB memory and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth are severely limiting by modern standards. It should be chosen only by those maintaining older portable systems that require a specific Kepler-based replacement part, not by anyone seeking competitive modern performance. The RTX card offers a generational leap that the Quadro cannot match, even with its modest power advantage.