NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data presents an unusual comparison: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, a 2011 mobile workstation part, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, a 2025 desktop GPU. The benchmark results show a stark division of labor. The Quadro 4000M has a single OpenCL benchmark score of 5211, which places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. In contrast, the RTX 5060 Ti has a suite of DirectX and PassMark tests, with its most relevant modern performance metric being a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4019 and a PassMark G3D score of 22618.

The RTX 5060 Ti wins on every modern API test it was subjected to, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as compute workloads. Its PassMark GPU Compute score of 11224 demonstrates a substantial advantage in general-purpose processing. The Quadro 4000M, meanwhile, has no DirectX 12 Ultimate support and lacks the hardware features that dominate contemporary workloads. Where the Quadro 4000M wins is in the narrow context of its own era: its OpenCL score of 5211 is competitive with its immediate peers, but that score is dwarfed by the absolute performance of the newer card. The data shows the RTX 5060 Ti is the clear winner in any scenario that leverages its modern architecture, while the Quadro 4000M only remains relevant for legacy compatibility or specific older OpenCL workflows.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture using a 40 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 332 mm² and 1,950 million transistors. The RTX 5060 Ti uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC, but with a much denser 21,900 million transistors packed into a smaller 181 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro versus 121.0M per mm² for the RTX card—a massive leap in manufacturing efficiency.

Core configurations differ drastically. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RTX 5060 Ti has 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The RTX card also introduces dedicated hardware absent from the older chip: 36 ray tracing cores and 144 tensor cores. Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 5060 Ti uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 128-bit bus, but achieves 448.0 GB/s bandwidth due to much faster memory clocks—1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

Feature support tells the story of obsolescence. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The RTX 5060 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX card also has a base clock of 2407 MHz and boost clock of 2572 MHz, while the Quadro lists no base or boost clock in the data—only its memory clock. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s and texture rate is 26.60 GTexel/s; the RTX card’s are 123.5 GPixel/s and 370.4 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 compute is 638.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro versus 23.70 TFLOPS for the RTX, with the RTX also offering FP16 at 23.70 TFLOPS (1:1) while the Quadro has no FP16 capability listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array in the data is empty, meaning there are no direct matched tests between these two specific cards. However, the individual benchmark suites provide enough information for a comparative analysis. The RTX 5060 Ti’s PassMark G3D score of 22618 is its most impressive result, reflecting strong rasterization performance. Its PassMark G2D score of 1206 indicates solid 2D and desktop rendering capability. In legacy DirectX tests, the RTX card scores 238 in DirectX 9, 144 in DirectX 10, 219 in DirectX 11, and 89 in DirectX 12—the latter being a surprisingly low number, though the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4019 is the more representative modern test.

The Quadro 4000M’s sole benchmark—Geekbench OpenCL at 5211—places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 760M (5236, delta -0.5%), Radeon R7 M260X (5161, delta 1%), Quadro K3100M (5154, delta 1.1%), and GeForce 940M (5284, delta -1.4%). These deltas are all within 1.4%, showing the Quadro is tightly clustered with its contemporaries. The RTX 5060 Ti’s average benchmark score is 4970, but this average is dragged down by low PassMark sub-scores (like 89 for DirectX 12 and 144 for DirectX 10). Its nearest rivals are the Quadro 4000 (4979, delta -0.2%), Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, delta -0.6%), Radeon R7 M360 (4931, delta 0.8%), and Radeon R7 M265 (4929, delta 0.8%).

The key takeaway is that the RTX 5060 Ti’s PassMark G3D score of 22618 is over four times higher than the Quadro’s OpenCL score of 5211, even though those tests measure different things. The RTX card’s compute score of 11224 is also more than double the Quadro’s only benchmark. The Quadro’s 80 GB/s bandwidth and 638.4 GFLOPS FP32 are orders of magnitude below the RTX’s 448 GB/s and 23.70 TFLOPS. In any workload that scales with shader count, memory bandwidth, or clock speed, the RTX 5060 Ti wins decisively.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is unambiguous for anyone building or upgrading a system today. The RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is the superior product for all modern use cases—gaming, content creation, or compute workloads. Its 16 GB of GDDR7 memory, 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 23.70 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a completely different performance class. The inclusion of ray tracing and tensor cores makes it suitable for DX12 Ultimate titles and AI-accelerated tasks, neither of which the Quadro 4000M can handle. The RTX card’s 180 W TDP and 450 W suggested PSU indicate a power-hungry but manageable desktop component.

The Quadro 4000M is an end-of-life product from 2011, with a 100 W TDP and MXM module form factor designed for laptops. Its 2 GB memory and 80 GB/s bandwidth are insufficient for modern workloads. Its only advantage is compatibility with older software that may rely on Fermi-era quirks or specific OpenCL paths. The data suggests the Quadro is only relevant for someone maintaining legacy mobile workstations that cannot be upgraded to a modern card. For any new purchase, the RTX 5060 Ti’s launch MSRP is 429 USD, and its performance metrics justify that position. The Quadro has no launch MSRP listed, reflecting its OEM-only status. The verdict: choose the RTX 5060 Ti for performance, features, and future-proofing; choose the Quadro 4000M only if you are stuck with a proprietary MXM slot and need a drop-in replacement for a vintage system.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti has 4608 shading units, compared to the Quadro 4000M’s 336 shading units.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 5060 Ti has 448.0 GB/s bandwidth from 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro 4000M has no ray tracing cores listed, while the RTX 5060 Ti has 36 RT cores.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm TSMC process, while the RTX 5060 Ti uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro 4000M has an average benchmark score of 5211 (from its single OpenCL test), while the RTX 5060 Ti has an average of 4970 across its suite. However, the RTX card’s PassMark G3D score of 22618 is far higher than the Quadro’s 5211.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RTX 5060 Ti supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Specification Differences

| Specification | Quadro 4000M | RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 21,900 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 181 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 121.0M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 336 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 56 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| RT Cores | None | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 144 |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) |

| Base Clock | None listed | 2407 MHz |

| Boost Clock | None listed | 2572 MHz |

| FP32 Compute | 638.4 GFLOPS | 23.70 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | None listed | 23.70 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 123.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 370.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 100 W | 180 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | None listed | 1.4 |

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

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2025-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 429 USD |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | GeForce 40 |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | GeForce 60 |