NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 in the two directly comparable benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739 against the Quadro M6000's 39,688, a delta of 441.1%. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 263,779 versus 46,913, putting the RTX 4080 462.3% ahead. These are generational gaps, not incremental improvements.

Looking at the broader database averages, the RTX 4080 carries an average benchmark score of 54,247, while the Quadro M6000 sits at 43,301. That is roughly a 25% overall advantage for the newer card across all recorded workloads. The RTX 4080's nearest rival in the database is the GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, which averages 54,209, a negligible 0.1% difference. The Quadro M6000, by contrast, sits within 0.1% of the RTX 5050 Mobile (43,268) and 0.1% of the Quadro M6000 24 GB (43,262), while trailing the RTX 4070 SUPER by 0.2% (43,223) and leading the RTX 4090 Mobile by 0.8% (43,667). The RTX 4080 also holds a 1.1% edge over the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54,828) and runs 2.6% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698).

The RTX 4080's percentile rank of 86 versus the M6000's 84 shows both cards sit high in the database, but the raw score gap tells the real story. In single-test comparisons, the RTX 4080's Geekbench OpenCL output is more than five times the M6000's. The Vulkan test shows similar scaling. No benchmark in the head-to-head set favors the Quadro.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4080 wins every recorded head-to-head test, so the use-case split follows from what each card can actually do. The RTX 4080 dominates compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 214,739 and Vulkan score of 263,779 indicate strong performance in general-purpose GPU compute and cross-platform graphics APIs. The Quadro M6000, with scores of 39,688 and 46,913 respectively, is not competitive in those same tests.

Where the Quadro M6000 retains relevance is in legacy compatibility and specific professional workflows that predate modern features. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support and older DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a drop-in for systems built around earlier display and API standards. The M6000's 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth is substantial for its era, and its 96 ROPs help with fill-rate-bound tasks of that generation. However, the data does not show any benchmark where the M6000 outruns the RTX 4080.

The RTX 4080's additional benchmark results, while not directly paired against the M6000, reinforce its broader strength. PassMark G3D at 34,457, PassMark GPU Compute at 20,671, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 6,567 all point to a card that handles modern rasterization and compute with ease. The M6000 has no recorded results in those tests, so no direct comparison exists, but the gap in the shared tests is decisive.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different eras of NVIDIA's design. The RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture at TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm². The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture at 28 nm, with 8,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 601 mm² die, for a density of just 13.3 million per mm². The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap.

The RTX 4080 features 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. It also includes dedicated hardware the M6000 lacks entirely: 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor core hardware at all. That means the RTX 4080 can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads such as DLSS, while the M6000 cannot.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RTX 4080 runs at a 2205 MHz base and 2505 MHz boost, while the M6000 sits at 988 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost. Memory technology also diverges sharply. The RTX 4080 uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) for 716.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The M6000 uses 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), delivering 317.4 GB/s. The RTX 4080 achieves more than double the bandwidth on a narrower bus thanks to much faster memory.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The RTX 4080 hits 280.6 GPixel/s and 761.5 GTexel/s. The M6000 manages 106.9 GPixel/s and 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 48.74 TFLOPS for the RTX 4080 versus 6.844 TFLOPS for the M6000. The RTX 4080 also supports FP16 at 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1), while the M6000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

The RTX 4080 is built on PCIe 4.0 x16, while the M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the RTX 4080 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. API support is close on OpenGL (both 4.6) and Vulkan (both 1.4), but DirectX differs: the RTX 4080 supports 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the M6000 is limited to 12 (12_1).

Power and physical design also reflect the generational shift. The RTX 4080 draws 320 W with a 1x 16-pin connector and a 700 W suggested PSU, in a triple-slot form factor measuring 310 mm long, 140 mm high, and 61 mm wide. The M6000 draws 250 W with a 1x 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU, in a dual-slot form factor measuring 267 mm long and 111 mm high. The RTX 4080 is longer and thicker but packs dramatically more performance into that space.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 in every recorded benchmark. The RTX 4080 is 441.1% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL and 462.3% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 54,247 versus 43,301 for the M6000 puts it in a different performance class entirely. The RTX 4080 also sits at the 86th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 84th percentile for the M6000.

The RTX 4080 is the choice for anyone needing modern feature support: ray tracing cores, tensor cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, HDMI 2.1, and DisplayPort 1.4a. It also offers more VRAM (16 GB versus 12 GB) and more than double the memory bandwidth. The M6000's only advantages are its older compatibility profile, lower power draw (250 W versus 320 W), and smaller physical footprint in length and height, though it is not a full triple-slot design. The launch MSRP for the RTX 4080 is 1,199 USD.

The Quadro M6000 remains viable only for systems locked into its era of connectivity and APIs. For any modern workload, the RTX 4080 is the clear pick based on the recorded data. The M6000's nearest rivals in the database are all RTX-class or newer cards, which shows how far behind it has fallen. The RTX 4080's nearest rivals are also newer cards, but the deltas are tiny, confirming it still competes at the top of the stack. Choose the RTX 4080 unless your workflow specifically requires Maxwell-era quirks or DVI output.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4080 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 214,739 versus 39,688 for the Quadro M6000, a 441.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The RTX 4080 wins all 2 recorded head-to-head tests, and the Quadro M6000 wins 0.

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

A: The RTX 4080 averages 54,247, while the Quadro M6000 averages 43,301. The RTX 4080 is about 25% higher.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro M6000 has no ray tracing cores. The RTX 4080 has 76 RT cores.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The RTX 4080 delivers 716.8 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6X interface, while the Quadro M6000 delivers 317.4 GB/s over a 384-bit GDDR5 interface.

Q: Are there API differences in DirectX support?

A: Yes. The RTX 4080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 | NVIDIA Quadro M6000 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 45,900 million | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 379 mm² | 601 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.1M / mm² | 13.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2205 MHz | 988 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2505 MHz | 1114 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective) | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 716.8 GB/s | 317.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 9728 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 304 | 192 |

| ROPs | 112 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 76 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 304 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 280.6 GPixel/s | 106.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 761.5 GTexel/s | 213.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 48.74 TFLOPS | 6.844 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not available |

| TDP | 320 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 310 mm (12.2 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 140 mm (5.5 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 61 mm (2.4 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2022-09-19 | 2015-03-20 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | Not available |