NVIDIA Quadro P6000 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 scores 66,382. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins with a delta of 120.8%.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4000 Ada Generation in Vulkan workloads?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 123,842 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 73,590 for the Quadro P6000. This represents a 68.3% advantage for the newer card.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 135,218, placing it in the 95th percentile among all GPUs. The Quadro P6000 has an average score of 69,986, placing it in the 90th percentile.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 432.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a TDP of 130 W and requires a 300 W suggested power supply. The Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested power supply.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is listed as Active production, released on 2023-08-08. The Quadro P6000 is listed as End-of-life, released on 2016-09-30.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins decisively in both recorded benchmark categories. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 146,593 versus 66,382 for the Quadro P6000, a 120.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 123,842 versus 73,590, a 68.3% advantage. The data shows the newer card is categorically ahead in compute-oriented workloads.

The Quadro P6000 retains advantages in specific hardware specifications that may matter for certain workflows. It offers 24 GB of memory versus 20 GB, a 384-bit memory bus versus 160-bit, and higher memory bandwidth at 432.8 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s. It also has more ROPs (96 versus 64) and more TMUs (240 versus 192). These figures suggest the Quadro P6000 could hold an edge in raw pixel throughput and texture-heavy operations, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect such scenarios.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins on efficiency. It consumes 130 W versus 250 W, allowing a single-slot design with a 16-pin connector, while the Quadro P6000 requires a dual-slot design with an 8-pin connector. The suggested power supply drops from 600 W to 300 W. This makes the RTX 4000 Ada Generation substantially easier to integrate into dense workstation configurations.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the AD104 chip. The Quadro P6000 uses the Pascal architecture on a 16 nm process at TSMC, with the GP102 chip. The process node difference is stark: 5 nm versus 16 nm.

Transistor counts reflect the generational leap. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation packs 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Quadro P6000 has 11,800 million transistors on a larger 471 mm² die, yielding a density of only 25.1 million per mm². The newer chip is more than three times denser.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation introduces dedicated hardware absent from the Quadro P6000. It includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The Quadro P6000 has neither, as Pascal predates both RT and tensor core implementations. This means the RTX 4000 Ada Generation can accelerate ray-traced rendering and AI inference workloads, while the Quadro P6000 must handle these tasks through traditional compute paths.

API support also differs. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The newer card's DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set enables advanced graphics capabilities that the older card cannot expose.

Specification Differences

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 6,144 shading units, while the Quadro P6000 has 3,840. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation also has 192 tensor cores and 48 RT cores; the Quadro P6000 has none of either. The newer card's FP32 throughput is 26.73 TFLOPS versus 12.63 TFLOPS for the older card. FP16 performance is even more divergent: 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) versus 197.4 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio).

Clock speeds differ in interesting ways. The Quadro P6000 has a higher base clock at 1506 MHz versus 1500 MHz, and a lower boost clock at 1645 MHz versus 2175 MHz. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's boost clock is substantially higher, which contributes to its compute advantage.

Memory configurations show a trade-off. The Quadro P6000 has 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus with 432.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. The effective memory speed is 18 Gbps for the newer card versus 9 Gbps for the older card, but the older card's wider bus compensates with higher total bandwidth.

Other differences include the bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16), slot width (single-slot versus dual-slot), power connectors (1x 16-pin versus 1x 8-pin), TDP (130 W versus 250 W), and suggested power supply (300 W versus 600 W). Both cards have 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, but the Quadro P6000 adds a DVI port. Physical dimensions differ: the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 245 mm long and 112 mm high, while the Quadro P6000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the largest single delta between the two cards. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593, while the Quadro P6000 scores 66,382, a 120.8% difference. This more than doubles the older card's output and indicates a massive generational improvement in general-purpose compute.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is also a clear win for the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, though the margin is smaller. The newer card scores 123,842 versus 73,590, a 68.3% difference. This suggests that the Vulkan advantage, while substantial, is less pronounced than the OpenCL advantage.

The average benchmark scores confirm the pattern. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation averages 135,218, while the Quadro P6000 averages 69,986. The newer card's average is nearly double the older card's average. In percentile terms, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000 sits at the 90th percentile.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's closest competitor is the NVIDIA A10M with an average score of 135,230, a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396 (-0.1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135,774 (-0.4%). The RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits in a tight cluster at the top of its segment.

The Quadro P6000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870 (+0.2%), the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile at 70,140 (-0.2%), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829 (-1.2%). The older card holds its own against these contemporaries, but the gap to the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is enormous.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the superior choice for compute-intensive workloads. It delivers 120.8% higher OpenCL scores and 68.3% higher Vulkan scores. Its average benchmark score of 135,218 places it among the top 5% of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000's 69,986 places it in the top 10%.

Users who need ray tracing acceleration or AI tensor operations should choose the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, as it is the only one of the two with dedicated RT cores (48) and tensor cores (192). Users who prioritize maximum memory capacity might consider the Quadro P6000's 24 GB versus 20 GB, and its higher memory bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s.

However, the Quadro P6000's advantages come with significant costs in other areas. Its 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested power supply demand more from the host system. Its dual-slot design consumes more physical space. Its Pascal architecture lacks the modern feature set of Ada Lovelace.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear winner in the recorded benchmarks, with a 2-0 win record in head-to-head tests. The Quadro P6000, while still competitive with its own peers, is outclassed by a wide margin. The production status reflects this: the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is Active, while the Quadro P6000 is End-of-life.

For new workstation deployments, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the data-supported choice. For users already invested in a Quadro P6000 ecosystem, the upgrade path is clear, but the benchmark gap suggests the transition will be transformative rather than incremental.