NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, and the RTX 4090 wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4090 scores 255,416 against the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. That is a delta of -71%, meaning the RTX 4090 is roughly 3.4 times faster in this compute workload. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw throughput. The Quadro's score places it at the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RTX 4090 sits at the 88th percentile, which suggests the benchmark pool includes many specialized or workstation cards that skew the distribution. Still, the absolute OpenCL gap is enormous.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 4090 posts 271,631 versus the Quadro's 129,564, a delta of -52.3%. The RTX 4090 is more than double the Quadro's Vulkan performance. The Quadro's Vulkan result is notably stronger relative to its OpenCL result than the RTX 4090's, which indicates the Turing architecture handles the Vulkan API relatively well, but it is still far behind. The RTX 4090's Vulkan score also exceeds its own OpenCL score, while the Quadro's Vulkan score is about 75% higher than its OpenCL score; both cards favor Vulkan, but the RTX 4090's absolute advantage remains consistent.

The head-to-head record is 0 wins for the Quadro RTX 6000 and 2 wins for the RTX 4090. No test in the database shows the Quadro ahead. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 101,872, while the RTX 4090's average is 60,347. This apparent contradiction, where the Quadro has a higher average despite losing both head-to-head tests, stems from the different benchmark suites recorded for each card. The RTX 4090 has a much larger set of tests, including several Passmark entries with low scores (e.g., 150 in DirectX 12, 224 in DirectX 10), which drag its average down. The Quadro only has two Geekbench entries, both relatively high. The database's average score is not a like-for-like comparison across different test suites.

For context, the Quadro RTX 6000's nearest rivals in the database are AMD workstation and prosumer cards: the Radeon RX 7900M (4.5% lower average score), Radeon Pro VII (4.9% lower), Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (4.6% higher), and Radeon Pro W6600X (5.1% higher). The RTX 4090's nearest rivals are a more mixed group: Intel Arc Pro A60 (0% delta), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (0.3% lower), AMD Radeon Pro W6600M (2.5% higher), and AMD Radeon PRO V710 (2.9% lower). These deltas show that the RTX 4090's average score sits in a cluster of very different cards, which again highlights that its average is skewed by the diverse test set.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural eras. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 4090 uses the AD102 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, also TSMC but on a 5 nm node. The process shrink is significant: 12 nm to 5 nm allows the RTX 4090 to pack 76,300 million transistors onto a 609 mm² die, while the Quadro fits 18,600 million transistors onto a larger 754 mm² die. Transistor density jumps from 24.7 million per mm² on Turing to 125.3 million per mm² on Ada Lovelace, a 5x increase.

The RTX 4090 has 16,384 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and 176 raster output units. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX 4090 has 128 ray tracing cores and 512 tensor cores; the Quadro has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores. Interestingly, the Quadro has more tensor cores than the RTX 4090, though they are from different generations and the Ada tensor cores are architecturally newer. The RTX 4090 compensates with far higher FP32 throughput: 82.58 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS for the Quadro. The FP16 figures are also telling: the RTX 4090 achieves 82.58 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro hits 32.62 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Quadro's FP16 is halved in practice unless using specialized instructions.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in type and speed. Both have 24 GB, but the Quadro uses GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 672.0 GB/s bandwidth over a 384-bit bus. The RTX 4090 uses GDDR6X at 21 Gbps effective, yielding 1.01 TB/s over the same 384-bit bus. The RTX 4090's bandwidth is roughly 50% higher. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the RTX 4090 outputs 443.5 GPixel/s and 1,290.2 GTexel/s, versus 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

The power and physical profiles differ substantially. The Quadro is rated at 260 W TDP with dual-slot cooling, a 600 W suggested PSU, and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The RTX 4090 is rated at 450 W, triple-slot, with an 850 W suggested PSU and a single 16-pin connector. The Quadro is shorter at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 304 mm (12 inches) for the RTX 4090; the Quadro is also narrower at 111 mm (4.4 inches) versus 137 mm (5.4 inches). The RTX 4090 has a listed width of 61 mm (2.4 inches); the Quadro's width is not recorded. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Quadro, PCIe 4.0 x16 on the RTX 4090.

Display outputs are another point of divergence. The Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C, while the RTX 4090 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro was released on August 12, 2018, with a launch MSRP of 6,299 USD. The RTX 4090 was released on September 19, 2022, with a launch MSRP of 1,599 USD. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4090 scores 255,416 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 71% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179.

Q: Do the two cards differ in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 672.0 GB/s from GDDR6 at 14 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4090 has 1.01 TB/s from GDDR6X at 21 Gbps effective. Both use a 384-bit bus and 24 GB capacity.

Q: Is the Quadro RTX 6000 more power efficient than the RTX 4090?

A: The database does not record efficiency metrics directly, but the TDP figures are 260 W for the Quadro and 450 W for the RTX 4090. The RTX 4090 delivers roughly 5x the FP32 throughput (82.58 vs 16.31 TFLOPS) at 1.73x the TDP, so the data indicates a substantially better performance-per-watt profile for the RTX 4090.

Q: Which card has more tensor cores?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 576 tensor cores, while the RTX 4090 has 512. However, the RTX 4090's tensor cores are from the newer Ada Lovelace architecture, and the FP16 throughput is much higher on the RTX 4090 (82.58 TFLOPS at 1:1) versus the Quadro (32.62 TFLOPS at 2:1).

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro's TU102 has 24.7 million transistors per mm² on a 12 nm process. The RTX 4090's AD102 has 125.3 million transistors per mm² on a 5 nm process. The RTX 4090 packs 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, versus 18,600 million on a 754 mm² die for the Quadro.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 in every recorded benchmark. The RTX 4090 leads by 71% in OpenCL and 52.3% in Vulkan. Its FP32 compute is 82.58 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS, its memory bandwidth is 1.01 TB/s versus 672.0 GB/s, and it has more shading units (16,384 vs 4,608), TMUs (512 vs 288), and ROPs (176 vs 96). The RTX 4090 also has a higher boost clock (2520 MHz vs 1770 MHz) and a base clock (2235 MHz vs 1440 MHz).

The Quadro RTX 6000 retains advantages in tensor core count (576 vs 512) and a lower TDP (260 W vs 450 W), along with a smaller physical footprint (267 mm length, 111 mm height, dual-slot versus the RTX 4090's 304 mm, 137 mm, triple-slot). It also offers a USB Type-C display output, which the RTX 4090 lacks. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins.

For users prioritizing raw performance in compute or graphics workloads, the RTX 4090 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its higher power draw and larger size are the trade-offs. The Quadro RTX 6000 might appeal to those needing a more compact, lower-power card with a USB-C output and more tensor cores, but the performance gap is so large that it is difficult to justify on any performance metric. The RTX 4090's launch MSRP of 1,599 USD is also recorded in the database, versus the Quadro's 6,299 USD, though the database does not analyze price-to-performance ratios. Both cards are end-of-life, so availability is a separate consideration. The verdict from the data: choose the RTX 4090 for performance, choose the Quadro only if its specific physical or connector features are mandatory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 |

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

| Chip | TU102 | AD102 |

| Architecture | Turing | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 18,600 million | 76,300 million |

| Die Size | 754 mm² | 609 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.7M / mm² | 125.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 2235 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 2520 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 1.01 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 16384 |

| TMUs | 288 | 512 |

| ROPs | 96 | 176 |

| RT Cores | 72 | 128 |

| Tensor Cores | 576 | 512 |

| Pixel Rate | 169.9 GPixel/s | 443.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 509.8 GTexel/s | 1,290.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.31 TFLOPS | 82.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) | 82.58 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 450 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 850 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

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

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

| Release Date | 2018-08-12 | 2022-09-19 |

| Launch MSRP | 6,299 USD | 1,599 USD |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |