NVIDIA L4 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a sharply split picture between the NVIDIA L4 and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, with each card claiming one decisive victory in the two available tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the L4 delivers a commanding performance, scoring 140,838 against the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74,179. That is a 89.9% advantage for the L4, a near-doubling of the older card’s compute throughput in this API. The L4’s OpenCL result is not just a win over its rival; it places the card at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 131,072. This places it within striking distance of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, which averages 131,938, a mere 0.7% difference, and ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation and NVIDIA A10M, both at 135,218 and 135,230 respectively, with the L4 trailing those two by 3.1%.

The Vulkan test flips the script entirely. Here, the Quadro RTX 6000 posts a score of 129,564, edging out the L4’s 121,306 by 6.4%. This narrow margin shows that the older Turing architecture still holds its own in certain graphics-centric APIs. The Quadro RTX 6000’s average benchmark score across both tests is 101,872, which places it at the 94th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in that aggregate ranking include the AMD Radeon RX 7900M at 97,487, which the Quadro beats by 4.5%, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo at 106,750, which sits 4.6% ahead of it. The Vulkan win for the Quadro is not a blowout, but it demonstrates that its architecture retains relevance in specific workloads, even as the L4 dominates in raw compute-oriented benchmarks.

Averaging the two results tells a broader story. The L4’s combined average score of 131,072 is 28.7% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 101,872. This aggregate advantage is driven almost entirely by the massive OpenCL gap, which dwarfs the Quadro’s modest Vulkan lead. In practical terms, the data suggests that the L4 is the stronger all-around performer for general-purpose compute, while the Quadro RTX 6000 remains competitive in Vulkan-based rendering or gaming workloads. The win count is even at one apiece, but the magnitude of the L4’s OpenCL victory carries significantly more weight in the overall assessment.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA L4 wins decisively, scoring 140,838 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000’s 74,179. This represents an 89.9% advantage for the L4, making it nearly twice as fast in this specific workload.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 6000 outperform the L4 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564 versus the L4’s 121,306, giving it a 6.4% lead. This is the only test where the older card comes out ahead.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The L4 sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is at the 94th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 131,072 for the L4 and 101,872 for the Quadro RTX 6000.

Q: What is the L4’s closest competitor in terms of average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is the nearest rival, with an average score of 131,938. The L4 trails it by just 0.7%. Other close rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation and NVIDIA A10M, both at 135,218, which are 3.1% ahead of the L4.

Q: How does the Quadro RTX 6000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000’s average score of 101,872 places it 4.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487) and 4.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131), but 4.6% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750) and 5.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342).

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score overall?

A: The NVIDIA L4, with an average score of 131,072, is approximately 28.7% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000’s 101,872. This aggregate figure reflects the L4’s dominance in OpenCL despite its Vulkan deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L4 is the clear choice for compute-heavy, OpenCL-based workloads. Its 89.9% advantage in that benchmark indicates a fundamental throughput advantage that would benefit tasks like data center inference, scientific simulation, or any application relying on general-purpose GPU compute. The L4’s architecture is newer, and the data reflects that generational leap in raw processing power. For users prioritizing OpenCL performance, the L4 is the only rational option between these two.

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, conversely, wins in the Vulkan API. This makes it the preferable card for Vulkan-based game engines, certain rendering pipelines, or graphics workloads that leverage this cross-platform API. The 6.4% margin is modest but consistent, suggesting that the Quadro RTX 6000’s older Turing architecture has optimizations or hardware features that still resonate in Vulkan environments. For a workstation primarily running Vulkan applications, the Quadro RTX 6000 holds a measurable edge.

In mixed workloads, the L4’s massive OpenCL win tilts the overall balance in its favor. The average benchmark score disparity is nearly 30%, which is substantial. However, the choice is not purely about averages; it depends on the specific API or application in use. If the workload is OpenCL-centric, the L4 is transformative. If it is Vulkan-centric, the Quadro RTX 6000 offers a slight but real performance benefit. There is no tie-breaker in the data; each card wins where it wins, and the user’s software stack determines the correct pick.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in nearly every hardware specification. The L4 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses a 12 nm process, also from TSMC. The L4 packs 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Quadro RTX 6000 has 18,600 million transistors on a much larger 754 mm² die, with a density of just 24.7 million per mm². This explains the L4’s superior efficiency and compute density.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The L4 has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost of 2040 MHz, while the Quadro RTX 6000 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also distinct: both have 24 GB of GDDR6, but the L4 uses a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro RTX 6000 uses a 384-bit bus delivering 672.0 GB/s — more than double the bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) for the L4 and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Quadro.

Compute resources favor the L4 in raw shader count: 7424 shading units versus 4608, and 240 tensor cores versus 576 (though the Quadro has more tensor cores, the L4’s are newer). The L4 has 60 RT cores, while the Quadro has 72. TMUs and ROPs also differ: the L4 has 240 TMUs and 80 ROPs, the Quadro has 288 TMUs and 96 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates are comparable, with the L4 at 163.2 GPixel/s and 489.6 GTexel/s, versus the Quadro’s 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance heavily favors the L4 at 30.29 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS, but FP16 is interestingly reversed: the L4 offers 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro offers 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specifications are starkly different. The L4 has a TDP of 72 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP, is dual-slot, needs one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The L4 is 169 mm long and 56 mm high, while the Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 4.0 x16 on the L4 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Quadro. Display outputs also differ: the L4 has none, while the Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The NVIDIA L4 is based on the AD104 chip, using the Ada Lovelace architecture, and belongs to the Server Ada (Lxx) generation. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip, based on Turing, in the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. The L4’s process node is 5 nm, a significant shrink from the Quadro’s 12 nm, which contributes to its far higher transistor density and lower power draw. The L4 was released on 2023-03-20 and is still in active production, while the Quadro RTX 6000 launched on 2018-08-12 and is now end-of-life. The L4’s predecessor is Server Ampere, and its successor is Server Hopper; the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere.

Cache and memory architecture reflect the different design goals. The L4’s 24 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus provides 300.1 GB/s, which is modest but paired with a much higher FP32 throughput. The Quadro’s 24 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus offers 672.0 GB/s, prioritizing bandwidth for memory-intensive tasks. The L4’s RT cores (60) and tensor cores (240) are newer generations, though the Quadro has more of each (72 and 576 respectively). The L4 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, as does the Quadro, so API support is identical.

The architectural differences also manifest in compute ratios. The L4’s FP32 and FP16 are both 30.29 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio common in modern compute cards. The Quadro’s FP16 is 32.62 TFLOPS, achieved via a 2:1 ratio, meaning it uses paired FP32 units for half-precision. This makes the Quadro theoretically stronger in FP16 workloads despite its lower FP32. The L4’s transistor count of 35,800 million on a smaller die indicates a much denser design, likely with more specialized hardware for AI and ray tracing. The Quadro’s larger die at 754 mm² is older and less efficient, but its wider memory bus and higher ROP count suggest it was designed for high-bandwidth, high-resolution rendering tasks. These architectural choices explain the benchmark outcomes: the L4 excels in compute-heavy OpenCL due to its modern shader and tensor core design, while the Quadro’s Vulkan win hints at its mature graphics pipeline and higher memory bandwidth.