NVIDIA L40 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional NVIDIA accelerators. The NVIDIA L40 wins both recorded tests decisively, but the nature of those wins tells a story about workload suitability. In Geekbench OpenCL, which typically exercises raw compute throughput across shading units and memory bandwidth, the L40 scores 330,926 against the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. That is a 346.1% advantage, a generational leap rather than an incremental improvement. The gap in Vulkan, a graphics-focused API that relies on rasterization and geometry processing, is narrower at 83.1% (237,295 versus 129,564). This suggests the L40's advantage grows when the workload becomes compute-bound rather than graphics-bound.

For users running OpenCL-based scientific simulation, AI inference, or data-parallel workloads, the L40 is the clear choice. The data shows it outperforms the Quadro RTX 6000 by more than fourfold in raw compute throughput. For Vulkan rendering tasks, such as real-time visualization or game-engine viewport work, the L40 still leads substantially, but the margin tightens to less than double. The Quadro RTX 6000, while older, remains competitive in scenarios where rendering pipelines are not the primary bottleneck. The recorded wins count is 2 for the L40 and 0 for the Quadro RTX 6000, but the qualitative takeaway is that the L40's dominance amplifies with compute intensity.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast and explains every benchmark delta. The L40 uses the AD102 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Quadro RTX 6000 relies on the TU102 chip fabbed at 12 nm. The process shrink alone enables the L40 to pack 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 6000 manages only 18,600 million transistors across a larger 754 mm² die, with a density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The L40 achieves nearly five times the transistor density, which directly translates into more compute resources per unit area.

The L40 belongs to the Ada Lovelace architecture, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is built on Turing. Ada Lovelace introduces significant changes in the streaming multiprocessor design. The L40 fields 18,176 shading units, 568 texture mapping units, and 192 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro RTX 6000 counters with 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The L40 has 142 ray tracing cores and 568 tensor cores, versus 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores on the older card. Interestingly, the tensor core count is nearly identical, but the L40's tensor cores are newer generation hardware. The memory subsystems differ too: the L40 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro RTX 6000 provides 24 GB on the same bus width but with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Power delivery and connectivity also reflect the generational shift. The L40 consumes up to 300 W via a single 16-pin connector, while the Quadro RTX 6000 draws 260 W through a 6-pin plus 8-pin combination. The L40 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the Quadro RTX 6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Both cards are dual-slot designs with identical physical dimensions of 267 mm by 111 mm. The L40 outputs four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the Quadro RTX 6000 offers the same four DisplayPorts plus a USB Type-C port. The L40's release date is 2022-10-12, four years after the Quadro RTX 6000's 2018-08-12 launch. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the headline number. The L40's 330,926 score represents a 346.1% improvement over the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. This is not a marginal upgrade; it is a complete redefinition of compute capability. The delta suggests that OpenCL workloads, which often scale with shading unit count and memory bandwidth, benefit enormously from the L40's 18,176 shaders and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000's 4,608 shaders and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth simply cannot keep pace.

The Vulkan benchmark narrows the gap but still favors the L40 substantially. The L40 scores 237,295 versus 129,564 for the Quadro RTX 6000, an 83.1% advantage. Vulkan workloads tend to stress driver overhead and draw call throughput, where the newer architecture's improved geometry processing and rasterization pipelines help. However, the L40's 192 ROPs versus 96 ROPs on the Quadro RTX 6000 contribute to the pixel fill rate difference: 478.1 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the L40 at 1,414.3 GTexel/s against 509.8 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute numbers in the specification table reinforce these benchmark results. The L40 delivers 90.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Quadro RTX 6000 manages 16.31 TFLOPS. That is a 5.5x raw compute advantage. The FP16 situation is interesting: the L40 achieves 90.52 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro RTX 6000 reaches 32.62 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. This means the L40 does not double FP16 throughput relative to FP32, whereas the Turing card does. For workloads that rely on mixed-precision, the L40 still wins overall but with a tighter margin than the raw FP32 comparison suggests.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA L40 scores 330,926 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 346.1% higher than the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. The L40 wins this test decisively.

Q: How does Vulkan performance compare?

A: The L40 achieves 237,295 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 129,564 for the Quadro RTX 6000, a 83.1% advantage for the L40. The gap is smaller than in OpenCL but still substantial.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The L40 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the Quadro RTX 6000 provides 24 GB. Both use a 384-bit bus, but the L40's bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s compared to 672.0 GB/s.

Q: Are the cards the same physical size?

A: Yes, both are dual-slot designs measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. They share identical dimensions.

Q: What process nodes do they use?

A: The L40 uses TSMC's 5 nm process with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses TSMC's 12 nm process with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more tensor cores?

A: The Quadro RTX 6000 has 576 tensor cores, slightly more than the L40's 568. However, the L40's Ada Lovelace tensor cores are from a newer generation with different capabilities.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows substantial differences across nearly every compute parameter. The L40 has 18,176 shading units versus 4,608 on the Quadro RTX 6000. TMU counts are 568 versus 288, and ROP counts are 192 versus 96. The ray tracing core count is 142 on the L40 versus 72 on the older card. Tensor cores are nearly tied at 568 versus 576, but the architecture generation differs.

Clock speeds reveal an interesting inversion. The Quadro RTX 6000 runs at a higher base clock of 1,440 MHz versus the L40's 735 MHz. The boost clocks are closer: 1,770 MHz for the Quadro RTX 6000 and 2,490 MHz for the L40. The L40's memory runs at 18 Gbps effective, while the Quadro RTX 6000's memory runs at 14 Gbps effective. The L40's pixel rate is 478.1 GPixel/s against 169.9 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 1,414.3 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s.

The power envelope differs by 40 W, with the L40 rated at 300 W and the Quadro RTX 6000 at 260 W. The L40 requires a 700 W suggested PSU and uses a single 16-pin connector. The Quadro RTX 6000 suggests a 600 W PSU with a 6-pin plus 8-pin configuration. Bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the L40 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro RTX 6000. Display outputs are nearly identical, with the Quadro RTX 6000 adding a USB Type-C port alongside its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The transistor density difference is stark: 125.3 million transistors per square millimeter for the L40 versus 24.7 million for the Quadro RTX 6000. This reflects the 5 nm versus 12 nm process gap. The L40's die is smaller at 609 mm² despite holding four times the transistors. The FP32 output is 90.52 TFLOPS for the L40 and 16.31 TFLOPS for the Quadro RTX 6000, while FP16 is 90.52 TFLOPS (1:1) and 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) respectively.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity for compute-heavy workloads. The NVIDIA L40 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 346.1% in OpenCL and 83.1% in Vulkan. The percentile ranking reinforces this: the L40 sits at the 99th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 ranks at the 94th percentile. The average benchmark score for the L40 is 284,111, compared to 101,872 for the Quadro RTX 6000.

For users running OpenCL-based simulation, data processing, or any FP32-heavy workload, the L40 is the only rational choice. Its 90.52 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 48 GB of memory, and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth provide headroom that the Quadro RTX 6000 cannot approach. The L40's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (1.1% lower average score) and the NVIDIA L40S (3.9% lower), placing it in a competitive tier at the top of the stack.

The Quadro RTX 6000's niche is narrower but not entirely obsolete. Its 24 GB memory capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth still serve workloads with modest VRAM requirements. The 576 tensor cores, while older generation, remain functional for inference tasks. Its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (5.1% higher average score) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (4.6% higher), show it remains competitive within its generation. The Quadro RTX 6000's lower 260 W power draw and 600 W PSU requirement make it easier to integrate into existing systems.

The verdict is straightforward: the L40 is the superior accelerator for any workload that leverages its compute resources. The Quadro RTX 6000 remains a viable option only for legacy deployments or scenarios where the newer card's power and PCIe requirements are prohibitive. The recorded data shows a two-generation leap in capability, and the benchmark results reflect that chasm. Choose the L40 for new purchases; reserve the Quadro RTX 6000 for existing infrastructure or budget-constrained, compute-light environments.