NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 represent two extremes of GPU design separated by more than a decade of architectural evolution. Based on the data, this is not a contest; it is a generational chasm. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER delivers a 4.8% higher average benchmark score (6270 vs. 5982) and places in the 36th percentile of all GPUs compared to the K4000’s 34th percentile, but the real story lies in the sheer scale of technical differentiation—from a 5 nm process versus 28 nm, to 16 GB of GDDR7 versus 3 GB of GDDR5. The verdict is immediate: the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is in a different performance universe, while the Quadro K4000 is a legacy product for legacy workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a modest overall score gap, but the nature of the tests highlights how differently these cards perform. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s single recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, produced a score of 6269.5, which anchors its average at 6270. The Quadro K4000, by contrast, was evaluated across three different Geekbench tests—Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan—yielding scores of 4166, 6816, and 6964 respectively, for an average of 5982.

The most striking conclusion is that the K4000’s best result (6964 in Geekbench Vulkan) exceeds the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s 3DMark score by 11.1%, but this is misleading. The Vulkan test measures compute-style workloads on an older architecture, while Steel Nomad is a modern DX12 gaming and graphics load. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s score of 6269.5 is 4.8% higher than the K4000’s average, but the K4000’s average itself is dragged down by its Metal score of 4166, which is 38.9% lower than its Vulkan result. This inconsistency suggests the K4000 is highly workload-dependent, whereas the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s single score indicates a more consistent modern graphics capability.

When examining nearest rivals for context, the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (deltaPct of 0%) and sits 0.8% above the AMD FirePro W600, but it lags 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M350. The Quadro K4000, meanwhile, is 0.1% behind its mobile counterpart the K4000M and 0.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4100. These rival comparisons confirm that both cards occupy specific performance tiers, but the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s tier is built for modern APIs while the K4000’s tier is defined by older compute benchmarks. The data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark overlap, meaning any direct comparison must rely on the average scores and architectural context.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is absolute. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses the GB203 chip built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, packing 45,600 million transistors into a 378 mm² die for a density of 120.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip on a 28 nm process, with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die—a density of just 11.5M/mm². That is a 10.5x density advantage for the newer card, enabling a 17.9x transistor count increase.

Memory technology has similarly leapfrogged. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER features 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, with 134.8 GB/s. That is a 6.6x bandwidth advantage and a 5.3x capacity increase. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s memory clock is 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) versus the K4000’s 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), representing a 5x effective speed gain.

Core counts are not remotely comparable. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 8960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 70 RT cores, and 280 tensor cores. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Pixel rate is 235.4 GPixel/s versus 12.96 GPixel/s (an 18.2x gap), texture rate is 686.6 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s (13.2x), and FP32 compute is 43.94 TFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS (a 35.3x advantage). The K4000 lists no FP16 capability, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER achieves 43.94 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is a dual-slot, 304 mm long card with a 350 W TDP and a 1x 16-pin connector. The K4000 is single-slot, 241 mm long, with an 80 W TDP and a 1x 6-pin connector, plus a 250 W suggested PSU. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER uses PCIe 5.0 x16 while the K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the newer card offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b, while the older card provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. API support sees the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, versus the K4000’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER wins everywhere that modern graphics, ray tracing, and AI-accelerated workloads matter. Its 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores enable ray-traced rendering and tensor-based operations that the K4000 cannot perform at all. The 16 GB GDDR7 frame buffer with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth supports high-resolution textures and large datasets, while the 43.94 TFLOPS FP32 throughput handles compute-heavy tasks. The 5 nm process and Blackwell 2.0 architecture make it a current-generation product with a production status of Active and a release date in late 2025.

The Quadro K4000 wins in legacy compatibility and power efficiency. Its 80 W TDP is 77.1% lower than the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s 350 W, making it suitable for systems with limited power delivery. Its single-slot design and 241 mm length allow installation in compact chassis, and its DVI output supports older monitors. The K4000’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 6964 suggests it retains some compute capability for specific OpenCL or Vulkan tasks, and its 2013 release date means it runs software from that era without driver conflicts. However, its End-of-life production status and lack of RT/tensor cores mean it cannot execute any ray-traced or AI-accelerated workloads.

For users with legacy professional applications that rely on Kepler-era drivers, the K4000 offers a stable platform. For anyone running contemporary games, 3D rendering, or machine learning inference, the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is the only viable choice. The data shows no scenario where the K4000 outperforms the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER in modern benchmarks, but its lower power draw and older interface support are its only tangible advantages.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER in raw compute?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER delivers 43.94 TFLOPS FP32, which is 35.3x higher than the Quadro K4000’s 1,244.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The K4000 has no RT cores, while the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER includes 70 RT cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has 16 GB of GDDR7, while the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5, a 5.3x capacity difference.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K4000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the power consumption gap?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER has a 350 W TDP, while the Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP, a 270 W difference.

Q: Are these cards currently in production?

A: The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is Active, while the Quadro K4000 is End-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

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

| Chip | GB203 | GK106 |

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 45,600 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 378 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 120.6M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2295 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 2452 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 896.0 GB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 8960 | 768 |

| TMUs | 280 | 64 |

| ROPs | 96 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 70 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 280 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 235.4 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 686.6 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 43.94 TFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 43.94 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 350 W | 80 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

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

| Release Date | 2025-12-31 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 749 USD | 1,269 USD |

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear choice for virtually every use case. The RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is the superior card for any modern workload—gaming, 3D rendering, AI inference, or high-bandwidth compute—by virtue of its 35.3x FP32 advantage, 6.6x memory bandwidth, and exclusive RT and tensor core support. Its 36th percentile ranking versus all GPUs and statistical tie with the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 position it as a mid-to-high-tier current-generation part, while its Active production status ensures driver and software support.

The Quadro K4000 should only be selected by users with legacy systems requiring its 80 W power draw, single-slot form factor, or DVI output. Its 34th percentile ranking is only 2 points lower than the newer card, but this is misleading given the complete absence of modern feature support. The K4000’s 2013 release date and End-of-life status make it a risk for any new deployment.

Ultimately, the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER is the only rational purchase for new systems, while the K4000 remains a historical artifact for specific legacy workflows. The 270 W TDP difference means the K4000 uses less power, but the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER’s performance and feature set justify the higher draw for any compute-intensive task. Choose the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER unless your requirements explicitly demand Kepler-era compatibility and minimal power consumption.