NVIDIA Quadro K4000M vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, separated by over a decade of GPU architecture evolution. The data shows the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is an active-production, 5 nm server-class part with 96 GB of GDDR7 memory, while the Quadro K4000M is an end-of-life, 28 nm mobile workstation module with 4 GB of GDDR5. Despite their vast differences, their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the RTX PRO 6000 scoring 5996 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test and the Quadro K4000M scoring 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, a delta of just 0.2 percent. This page analyzes the two based strictly on the provided specification and benchmark data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a strange case: the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and the Quadro K4000M are nearly identical in their average scores, but they achieve parity through entirely different means. The RTX PRO 6000 scores 5996 on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5986 on Geekbench OpenCL. With a delta of only 0.2 percent favoring the RTX PRO 6000, the raw numbers suggest they are statistically equivalent in these specific tests, yet the underlying hardware could not be more different.

For a user strictly evaluating synthetic benchmark scores, either card would appear to offer similar performance. However, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the only rational choice for any modern workload, as it is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with 24,064 shading units, 188 RT cores, and 752 tensor cores, whereas the Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units and no RT or tensor core support. The Quadro K4000M is also end-of-life, having been released in 2012, while the RTX PRO 6000 was released in 2025 and remains active in production.

The data indicates that the Quadro K4000M should only be considered for legacy system maintenance or compatibility with MXM-B slots, where its 100 W TDP and portable-device-dependent display outputs fit a very specific niche. The RTX PRO 6000, with its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, dual-slot design, and 600 W TDP, is designed for server environments where its 96 GB of memory and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth can be fully utilized. The verdict is clear: the RTX PRO 6000 is the superior product for any new deployment, while the Quadro K4000M is a historical artifact that only makes sense in a purely legacy context.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has a score of 5996, which is 0.2 percent higher than the Quadro K4000M's 5986, based on their respective 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and Geekbench OpenCL tests.

Q: How do the memory specifications differ between the two?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has an "Active" production status, while the Quadro K4000M is marked as "End-of-life."

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 uses 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, whereas the Quadro K4000M uses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Q: Do both support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RTX PRO 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 was released on March 17, 2025. The Quadro K4000M was released on May 31, 2012.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is immense, as evidenced by their respective process nodes and transistor counts. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, allowing for 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 122.9M per mm². The Quadro K4000M, in contrast, uses a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, with only 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.0M per mm². This means the RTX PRO 6000 packs roughly 26 times more transistors into a die that is only 2.55 times larger.

The chip designations reflect the generational leap: the RTX PRO 6000 uses the GB202 chip from the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, while the Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip from the Kepler architecture. The RTX PRO 6000 is part of the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation, whereas the Quadro K4000M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. This places the RTX PRO 6000 as a successor to Server Hopper and a predecessor to Server Rubin, while the Quadro K4000M succeeded Quadro Fermi-M and was followed by Quadro Maxwell-M.

The compute capabilities diverge sharply. The RTX PRO 6000 features 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 188 RT cores, and 752 tensor cores. The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT cores or tensor cores listed. The RTX PRO 6000 also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RTX PRO 6000's feature set is clearly designed for modern ray tracing and AI workloads, which the Kepler architecture cannot handle.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds illustrate the efficiency gains of the newer architecture. The RTX PRO 6000 runs at a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz, while the Quadro K4000M is fixed at 601 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks differ similarly: the RTX PRO 6000 operates at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro K4000M runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective. The memory type also differs, with GDDR7 on the RTX PRO 6000 versus GDDR5 on the Quadro K4000M.

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of memory on a 512-bit bus, achieving 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus, achieving 89.60 GB/s. This means the RTX PRO 6000 has 24 times the memory capacity and approximately 20 times the bandwidth. The pixel rate is 502.5 GPixel/s for the RTX PRO 6000 versus 12.02 GPixel/s for the Quadro K4000M, and the texture rate is 1,968.0 GTexel/s versus 48.08 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 126.0 TFLOPS for the RTX PRO 6000 versus 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the Quadro K4000M.

Physical specifications also differ. The RTX PRO 6000 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, requiring a 600 W TDP and a 1000 W suggested PSU, powered by a single 16-pin connector. The Quadro K4000M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, using an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The RTX PRO 6000 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, while the Quadro K4000M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The RTX PRO 6000 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Quadro K4000M uses MXM-B (3.0).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark results available in the data, as the two GPUs were tested on different benchmarks. The RTX PRO 6000 was tested on 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12, scoring 5996, while the Quadro K4000M was tested on geekbench_opencl, scoring 5986. However, the nearestRivals data provides a basis for comparison, as each card's rivals include the other.

The RTX PRO 6000's nearest rivals show it is 0.2 percent ahead of the Quadro K4000M, but 0.1 percent behind both the GeForce GTX 770M and the AMD Radeon RX 6400, and 0.1 percent behind the AMD FirePro W4100. The Quadro K4000M's nearest rivals show it is 0.2 percent behind the RTX PRO 6000, 0.1 percent ahead of the Quadro K4000, and 0.2 percent behind the GeForce GTX 770M, while being nearly identical to the AMD FirePro W4100 with a 0 delta.

This data indicates that both cards sit in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are outperformed by the majority of the GPU population. The RTX PRO 6000's score of 5996 is almost identical to the Quadro K4000M's 5986, with a delta of 0.2 percent. This suggests that in the specific synthetic workload tested, the massive architectural advantages of the RTX PRO 6000 do not translate into a higher score, likely due to the different nature of the benchmarks (DX12 gaming-like test versus OpenCL compute test). The data shows a near-tie in average scores, but the contexts of those scores are entirely different.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server wins decisively in every specification category that matters for modern computing. Its FP32 performance of 126.0 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro K4000M's 1,153.9 GFLOPS, representing a 109-fold advantage. The memory capacity of 96 GB versus 4 GB, bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s versus 89.60 GB/s, and the presence of 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores versus none, make it the only viable option for ray tracing, AI inference, and large dataset processing. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and dual-slot design are optimized for server racks, and its 4x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs support modern high-resolution displays.

The Quadro K4000M wins only in very specific legacy scenarios. Its MXM module form factor and 100 W TDP make it suitable for older mobile workstations that require this specific interface, where its portable-device-dependent display outputs are appropriate. Its lack of power connectors means it can be installed in systems without additional power delivery, which is a consideration for certain embedded or mobile designs. The Quadro K4000M also has a lower transistor density of 12.0M per mm², which is not a performance benefit but reflects its older, simpler design.

In terms of production status, the RTX PRO 6000 is active and available for new deployments, while the Quadro K4000M is end-of-life, meaning it is only relevant for maintaining existing systems. The benchmark data shows the RTX PRO 6000 wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test with a score of 5996, while the Quadro K4000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5986, but these are different tests measuring different capabilities. For any user needing modern features, the RTX PRO 6000 is the clear winner. For a user maintaining a legacy MXM-based system, the Quadro K4000M is the only choice that fits the form factor and power constraints.