NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 vs NVIDIA Quadro P6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 has an average benchmark score of 69986, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 averages 54247. The P6000 sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the RTX 4080's 86th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX 4080 scores 214739 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the P6000's 66382, a 69.1% advantage for the RTX 4080. This is the larger of the two benchmark gaps between the cards.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what type is it?

A: The Quadro P6000 offers 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, while the RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus. Despite the smaller capacity, the RTX 4080's memory bandwidth is higher at 716.8 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs of these two cards?

A: The Quadro P6000 had a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, while the RTX 4080 launched at 1,199 USD.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The RTX 4080 includes 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores. The Quadro P6000 lists no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: Both GPUs are listed as end-of-life. The P6000 was released on 2016-09-30, and the RTX 4080 followed on 2022-09-19.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from profoundly different architectural generations. The Quadro P6000 is built on the Pascal architecture with the GP102 chip, fabricated at TSMC on a 16 nm process. The RTX 4080 uses the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD103 chip, also at TSMC but on a 5 nm node. This process shrink allows the RTX 4080 to pack 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The P6000 contains 11,800 million transistors on a much larger 471 mm² die, yielding just 25.1M per mm².

The compute configuration differs substantially. The P6000 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 4080 more than doubles the shading unit count to 9728, with 304 TMUs and 112 ROPs. The RTX 4080 also introduces dedicated hardware not present on the P6000: 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores. These enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads, capabilities entirely absent from the Pascal-based card.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The P6000 operates at a 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. The RTX 4080 runs at 2205 MHz base and 2505 MHz boost, a significant frequency advantage. Memory technology also advanced: the P6000 uses GDDR5X at 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective), while the RTX 4080 uses GDDR6X at 1400 MHz (22.4 Gbps effective). The RTX 4080's memory bus is narrower at 256-bit versus 384-bit, but the faster memory type results in higher bandwidth: 716.8 GB/s versus 432.8 GB/s.

The FP32 throughput reflects the generational leap. The P6000 delivers 12.63 TFLOPS, while the RTX 4080 reaches 48.74 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows an even more dramatic change: the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the RTX 4080 achieves 48.74 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning the newer card's FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate.

Other interface differences matter for integration. The P6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX 4080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RTX 4080 provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX 4080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Power and physical requirements also diverge. The P6000 has a 250 W TDP with a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4080 draws 320 W, uses a 16-pin connector, and suggests a 700 W PSU. The P6000 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. The RTX 4080 is a triple-slot card at 310 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two directly comparable benchmark results for this pair: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both decisively favor the RTX 4080.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214739 against the P6000's 66382, a 69.1% lead. This gap aligns with the raw compute specifications: the RTX 4080 has more than 2.5 times the shading units, substantially higher clocks, and nearly 4 times the FP32 throughput. The OpenCL score reflects this compute advantage almost directly.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4080 scores 263779 versus the P6000's 73590, a 72.1% advantage. Vulkan results often benefit from newer driver optimization and hardware features. The RTX 4080's newer architecture and PCIe 4.0 interface likely contribute to this larger gap, though the database does not isolate these factors.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores tell a different story than the head-to-head results. The P6000's average score of 69986 exceeds the RTX 4080's 54247, despite losing both direct comparisons. This is because the two cards have different benchmark portfolios in the database. The P6000 has only two recorded benchmarks, both Geekbench tests. The RTX 4080 has ten recorded benchmarks, including Passmark tests across multiple DirectX versions, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, and Passmark G2D/G3D/GPU Compute. The RTX 4080's average is pulled down by lower scores in older DirectX tests, such as 132 in Passmark DirectX 12 and 204 in DirectX 10, which are not comparable across the two cards' test sets.

The RTX 4080's closest rival in the database is the RTX 4080 SUPER with an average score of 54209, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X trails by 1.1% at 54828, and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB sits 2.6% behind at 55698. The AMD Radeon 8060S leads the RTX 4080 by 2.7% at 55757. The P6000's rivals are a different group: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69870, just 0.2% behind the P6000, while the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile scores 70140, 0.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE leads by 1.2% at 70829, and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX trails by 1.4% at 69000.

These rivalry comparisons show that the P6000, despite being older and slower in raw compute, still competes in its tier. Its 90th percentile ranking places it ahead of the RTX 4080's 86th percentile in overall GPU standing. This is largely a function of the benchmark mix: the P6000's limited test set consists entirely of Geekbench results, where it performs consistently, while the RTX 4080's broader test suite includes legacy DirectX workloads that drag down its average.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between two use cases. For raw compute performance in modern APIs, the RTX 4080 is the unambiguous winner. It leads by 69.1% in OpenCL and 72.1% in Vulkan, the only directly comparable measurements. Its 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 76 RT cores, 304 tensor cores, and 716.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads, ray tracing, and AI inference.

The Quadro P6000's advantages are different. It has a higher average benchmark score at 69986 versus 54247, a higher percentile ranking at 90 versus 86, and more VRAM at 24 GB versus 16 GB. For workloads that require large memory capacity but not the latest compute features, the P6000's 24 GB GDDR5X frame buffer remains relevant. Its lower TDP of 250 W and single 8-pin connector also make it easier to integrate into systems with modest power delivery.

Buyers should choose the RTX 4080 if they prioritize compute performance, modern API support, ray tracing, or tensor-based workloads. The data shows it dominates the P6000 in every directly comparable benchmark. Buyers should consider the P6000 if they need the larger memory capacity, value the higher average benchmark score, or require the professional display output configuration with DVI and four DisplayPort connections. The P6000's end-of-life status and 2016 release date, however, mean it lacks the architectural features of the 2022 RTX 4080.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P6000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1506 MHz | 2205 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1645 MHz | 2505 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1127 MHz, 9 Gbps effective | 1400 MHz, 22.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 716.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 9728 |

| TMUs | 240 | 304 |

| ROPs | 96 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None listed | 76 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 304 |

| Pixel Rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 280.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 761.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.63 TFLOPS | 48.74 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 320 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 700 W |

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

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

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

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm | 310 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2022-09-19 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,999 USD | 1,199 USD |