GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 represent two very different eras of GPU design, yet their aggregate benchmark scores land within 1.3% of each other. The P6000 averages 67,320 points across its recorded tests, while the RTX 4090 averages 66,473, putting the older workstation card in the 92nd percentile versus the 91st for its consumer successor. However, the direct head-to-head compute tests tell a far more lopsided story, with the RTX 4090 outpacing the P6000 by 79.9% in OpenCL and 73.8% in Vulkan. This contrast between aggregate parity and per-test dominance shapes the entire comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared by both cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RTX 4090 scores 317,684 against the P6000’s 63,852, a delta of -79.9% from the P6000’s perspective. That means the RTX 4090 delivers roughly five times the raw compute performance in this workload. In Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains enormous: the RTX 4090 scores 270,615 versus the P6000’s 70,788, a 73.8% deficit for the Quadro. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational leap in shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and architecture efficiency.

Yet the aggregate average benchmark score flips the narrative. The P6000’s 67,320 average is 1.3% higher than the RTX 4090’s 66,473, and the P6000 also holds a one-percentile advantage (92nd vs 91st). This suggests that the P6000 performs relatively better in other, unlisted tests, likely workstation-oriented workloads that favor its driver optimizations or specific compute patterns. The RTX 4090’s list of ten benchmarks includes many DirectX and Passmark tests, but only the two Geekbench results overlap with the P6000. So while the RTX 4090 crushes the P6000 in the shared compute tests, the overall picture is far more nuanced.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on radically different nodes and designs. The P6000 uses the GP102 chip on TSMC’s 16 nm process, packing 11,800 million transistors into a 471 mm² die. The RTX 4090 uses the AD102 chip on TSMC’s 5 nm process, with 76,300 million transistors in a 609 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 125.3 million per mm² for the RTX 4090 versus 25.1 million for the P6000, a 5x improvement in packing efficiency.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The P6000 runs at a base of 1506 MHz and boosts to 1645 MHz, while the RTX 4090 starts at 2235 MHz and boosts to 2520 MHz. Memory clocks follow suit: the P6000 uses 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) GDDR5X, while the RTX 4090 uses 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) GDDR6X. Bandwidth jumps from 432.8 GB/s to 1.01 TB/s, a 2.3x increase. Both cards have 24 GB of memory on a 384-bit bus, but the memory type and speed make the RTX 4090 far faster in memory-bound tasks.

Compute resources are where the gap becomes stark. The P6000 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 4090 has 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. The RTX 4090 also adds 128 dedicated ray-tracing cores and 512 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the P6000. Pixel rate rises from 157.9 GPixel/s to 443.5 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 394.8 GTexel/s to 1,290.2 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput jumps from 12.63 TFLOPS to 82.58 TFLOPS, a 6.5x increase. FP16 is even more dramatic: the P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the RTX 4090 delivers 82.58 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it handles half-precision at the same rate as full-precision.

Power and physical design differ as well. The P6000 is rated at 250 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires a single 8-pin power connector with a 600 W suggested PSU. The RTX 4090 draws 450 W, occupies a triple-slot cooler, needs a 16-pin connector, and recommends an 850 W PSU. The bus interface moves from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs change: the P6000 offers 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RTX 4090 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RTX 4090 is also physically larger: 304 mm long, 137 mm tall, and 61 mm wide, versus the P6000’s 267 mm length and 111 mm height (no width listed).

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the RTX 4090 for raw compute performance. In the two shared benchmarks, it wins by margins of 73.8% and 79.9%, and its FP32, FP16, memory bandwidth, and shading unit counts are all several times higher. Any workload that relies on those resources, real-time ray tracing, AI inference, or heavy compute shaders, will be dramatically faster on the RTX 4090.

The P6000, however, holds a slight edge in aggregate average score (67,320 vs 66,473) and percentile (92 vs 91). That suggests it may still excel in specific workstation tasks that are not captured by the shared Geekbench tests, possibly due to driver optimizations or a more balanced performance profile across a wider range of applications. Its lower TDP (250 W vs 450 W) and dual-slot design also make it easier to fit into dense server or workstation configurations.

For users who need maximum compute throughput and are willing to accommodate a 450 W, triple-slot card with a 16-pin connector, the RTX 4090 is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence. For those who prioritize a smaller physical footprint, lower power draw, and a DVI output, the P6000 remains competitive despite its age. The launch MSRP of the P6000 was 5,999 USD, while the RTX 4090 launched at 1,599 USD, but that price difference is not reflected in performance parity, the RTX 4090 dominates in the tests where they overlap.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two cards differ, using the exact values from the dataset.

| Specification | Quadro P6000 | GeForce RTX 4090 |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Ada Lovelace |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | GeForce 40 |

| Process node | 16 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 76,300 million |

| Die size | 471 mm² | 609 mm² |

| Transistor density | 25.1M / mm² | 125.3M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1506 MHz | 2235 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1645 MHz | 2520 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1127 MHz / 9 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz / 21 Gbps effective |

| Memory type | GDDR5X | GDDR6X |

| Bandwidth | 432.8 GB/s | 1.01 TB/s |

| Shading units | 3840 | 16384 |

| TMUs | 240 | 512 |

| ROPs | 96 | 176 |

| RT cores | None | 128 |

| Tensor cores | None | 512 |

| Pixel rate | 157.9 GPixel/s | 443.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 394.8 GTexel/s | 1,290.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.63 TFLOPS | 82.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64) | 82.58 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 450 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | Triple-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 850 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) |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 in) | 304 mm (12 in) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 in) | 137 mm (5.4 in) |

| Width | Not listed | 61 mm (2.4 in) |

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

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 30 |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 50 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,999 USD | 1,599 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The RTX 4090 delivers 82.58 TFLOPS FP32, while the P6000 offers 12.63 TFLOPS, a 6.5x difference.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 24 GB, but the RTX 4090 uses faster GDDR6X with 1.01 TB/s bandwidth versus the P6000’s GDDR5X at 432.8 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The P6000 averages 67,320 points, which is 1.3% higher than the RTX 4090’s 66,473.

Q: Does the RTX 4090 have dedicated ray-tracing cores?

A: Yes, it includes 128 RT cores and 512 tensor cores; the P6000 has none of either.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 4090 packs 125.3M transistors per mm², compared to the P6000’s 25.1M per mm².

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The P6000 is rated at 250 W TDP, while the RTX 4090 is rated at 450 W, with suggested PSUs of 600 W and 850 W respectively.