NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two NVIDIA workstation-oriented cards. Across the two common benchmark workloads in the database, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 wins both tests outright. The most extreme margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the RTX 4090 scores 255,416 against the Quadro M6000's 39,688. That is a 543.6% advantage for the newer card, a gap so large that it reflects not just generational improvements but a complete shift in compute architecture.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RTX 4090 posts 271,631, while the Quadro M6000 manages 46,913. This is a 479% delta in favor of the RTX 4090. Vulkan is a lower-level API, so this result indicates that the RTX 4090's hardware is able to feed the GPU pipeline far more efficiently. The Quadro M6000, based on Maxwell 2.0, cannot match the newer card's throughput in either API.

Looking at the average benchmark score across all recorded tests, the RTX 4090 reaches 60,347, while the Quadro M6000 averages 43,301. That is a substantial overall margin, though the head-to-head deltas are even larger because the database contains more benchmark entries for the RTX 4090. The RTX 4090 sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M6000 sits at the 84th percentile. Percentile positioning shows that while the Quadro M6000 remains above most of the field, the RTX 4090 is in a higher tier of overall performance.

The nearest rivals for the RTX 4090, based on average score, include the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58,657 (2.9% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M at 61,896 (2.5% ahead). The Quadro M6000's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile at 43,667 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB sits effectively level at 43,262 (0.1% behind). These rival clusters show that the RTX 4090 competes in a much higher performance neighborhood than the Quadro M6000, even when accounting for mobile or pro-variant products.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different GPU generations. The RTX 4090 uses the AD102 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node gap alone explains much of the performance difference: 5 nm versus 28 nm is a massive reduction in feature size.

Transistor counts differ enormously. The AD102 packs 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 125.3 million per square millimeter. The GM200 has 8,000 million transistors on a 601 mm² die, for a density of 13.3 million per square millimeter. The die sizes are similar, but the RTX 4090 fits nearly ten times more transistors into roughly the same area. That density advantage translates directly into more compute units, more memory bandwidth, and more specialized hardware.

The RTX 4090 features 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores, while the Quadro M6000 has none of either. RT cores handle ray tracing workloads, and tensor cores accelerate AI and deep learning operations. The Quadro M6000 predates both technologies, so it cannot accelerate those tasks in hardware at all. For any modern workload involving ray tracing or tensor-based inference, the RTX 4090 has dedicated silicon while the Quadro M6000 must rely on general-purpose shading units.

Shading resources also differ sharply. The RTX 4090 has 16,384 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and 176 ROPs. The Quadro M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. In every category, the RTX 4090 has more than five times the shading units, nearly three times the TMUs, and nearly double the ROPs. The pixel rate for the RTX 4090 is 443.5 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro M6000. Texture rate is 1,290.2 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 82.58 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. The RTX 4090 also supports FP16 at 82.58 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the Quadro M6000 has no listed FP16 capability.

The RTX 4090's memory subsystem is also far ahead. It uses 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 has 12 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, for 317.4 GB/s. The same bus width but a newer memory type gives the RTX 4090 more than three times the bandwidth. Memory clocks reflect this: the RTX 4090 runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective), while the Quadro M6000 runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).

The RTX 4090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4090 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RTX 4090 requires a 450 W TDP and a suggested 850 W PSU with a 1x 16-pin connector. The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W PSU with a 1x 8-pin connector. The RTX 4090 is a triple-slot card, while the Quadro M6000 is dual-slot.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4090 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In OpenCL compute, it leads by 543.6%, and in Vulkan it leads by 479%. These are not close contests. The RTX 4090 is the clear choice for any workload that stresses raw compute throughput, modern API support, or memory bandwidth. Its 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores give it capabilities the Quadro M6000 simply does not have. For tasks like ray-traced rendering, AI inference, or large dataset processing, the RTX 4090 is the only one of the two with dedicated hardware acceleration.

The Quadro M6000's strengths are more about legacy compatibility and power envelope. It has a 250 W TDP versus 450 W, and it uses a single 8-pin connector instead of a 16-pin connector. It is a dual-slot card versus triple-slot, and it is shorter at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 304 mm (12 inches). For older systems with PCIe 3.0 slots and lower PSU capacity, the Quadro M6000 is the easier drop-in. Its 12 GB of GDDR5 memory is still substantial for many pro workloads, and its 84th percentile standing shows it remains competitive against a broad field of GPUs.

However, the data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro M6000 wins. Its nearest rivals in the database, including the RTX 4090 Mobile, are all within 0.8% of its average score, which suggests it sits in a crowded mid-range performance band. The RTX 4090, by contrast, is in a performance tier where its nearest rivals are also high-end cards like the AMD Radeon PRO V710 and Radeon Pro W6600M. The use-case split is therefore not about one card winning certain tasks; it is about the RTX 4090 dominating every measured metric while the Quadro M6000 offers a lower-power, legacy-friendly alternative.

Specification Differences

The RTX 4090 uses the AD102 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, while the Quadro M6000 uses GM200 on Maxwell 2.0. The process node is 5 nm versus 28 nm. Transistor count is 76,300 million versus 8,000 million. Die size is 609 mm² versus 601 mm². Transistor density is 125.3M / mm² versus 13.3M / mm².

Base clock is 2235 MHz versus 988 MHz. Boost clock is 2520 MHz versus 1114 MHz. Memory clock is 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). Memory size is 24 GB versus 12 GB. Memory type is GDDR6X versus GDDR5. Bus width is 384 bit in both cases. Bandwidth is 1.01 TB/s versus 317.4 GB/s.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 3,072. TMUs are 512 versus 192. ROPs are 176 versus 96. RT cores are 128 versus none. Tensor cores are 512 versus none. Pixel rate is 443.5 GPixel/s versus 106.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,290.2 GTexel/s versus 213.9 GTexel/s. FP32 is 82.58 TFLOPS versus 6.844 TFLOPS. FP16 is 82.58 TFLOPS (1:1) versus not listed.

TDP is 450 W versus 250 W. Slot width is triple-slot versus dual-slot. Power connector is 1x 16-pin versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 850 W versus 600 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). OpenGL is 4.6 in both. Vulkan is 1.4 in both.

Length is 304 mm (12 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches). Height is 137 mm (5.4 inches) versus 111 mm (4.4 inches). Width is 61 mm (2.4 inches) versus not listed. Release date is 2022-09-19 versus 2015-03-20. The RTX 4090 has a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD; the Quadro M6000 has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 4090 reaches 82.58 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro M6000 reaches 6.844 TFLOPS, a roughly 12x gap in raw shading throughput.

Q: Does the Quadro M6000 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Quadro M6000 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, while the RTX 4090 includes 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores.

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

A: The RTX 4090 delivers 1.01 TB/s over a 384-bit GDDR6X interface, while the Quadro M6000 delivers 317.4 GB/s over a 384-bit GDDR5 interface.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RTX 4090 scores 271,631 versus 46,913 for the Quadro M6000, a 479% advantage for the newer card.

Q: Which card has a lower power requirement?

A: The Quadro M6000 has a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W PSU, while the RTX 4090 has a 450 W TDP and a suggested 850 W PSU.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The RTX 4090 was released on 2022-09-19, and the Quadro M6000 on 2015-03-20.