NVIDIA Quadro P6000 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a decisive outcome: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins both head-to-head benchmark tests against the NVIDIA Quadro P6000. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation achieves an average benchmark score of 117,088, which places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro P6000 averages 69,986, sitting in the 90th percentile. This is not a marginal gap; the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation leads by 67.3% in average score, a massive chasm that reflects two very different generations of workstation hardware.

The verdict for professionals is clear from the data: the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the superior choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. Its 88% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 48.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan leave little room for debate. However, the Quadro P6000 still holds relevance in specific scenarios. It offers 24 GB of memory versus 20 GB, a 4 GB advantage, and its 384-bit memory bus provides 432.8 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the RTX 4000 SFF's 280.0 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound or bandwidth sensitive, the older card retains a functional edge, despite its slower overall compute throughput.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the obvious pick for modern compute tasks, AI inference (thanks to its tensor cores), and ray-traced workloads (via its RT cores). The Quadro P6000, with its end-of-life status and Pascal architecture, is better suited for legacy environments where the software stack is tied to older driver models or where 24 GB of VRAM is an absolute requirement. The data does not support recommending the Quadro P6000 for new purchases on performance grounds alone, but its memory capacity remains its sole saving grace.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins decisively in compute-oriented benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 124,812 against the Quadro P6000's 66,382, a delta of 88%. This is a workload that stresses raw FP32 throughput, and the Ada card's 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the Pascal card's 12.63 TFLOPS. The RTX 4000 SFF also excels in Vulkan, scoring 109,364 versus 73,590, a 48.6% advantage, indicating superior driver efficiency and modern architecture benefits in graphics API workloads. The presence of 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores on the RTX 4000 SFF means any ray-tracing or AI-accelerated task is simply not available on the Quadro P6000, which has neither.

The Quadro P6000 does claim victory in memory-centric scenarios. Its 24 GB of GDDR5X memory exceeds the RTX 4000 SFF's 20 GB of GDDR6, and its bandwidth of 432.8 GB/s is 54.6% higher than the 280.0 GB/s of the newer card. For large dataset manipulation in scientific visualization or frame buffer heavy applications, the P6000's 384-bit bus and higher pixel rate (157.9 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s) could provide an advantage in specific rasterization tasks. The P6000 also has a higher texture rate at 394.8 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s, so texture-bound workloads might favor the older card. However, these wins are narrow and do not compensate for the massive compute deficit.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is generational. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². In contrast, the Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip on a 16 nm process, also from TSMC, with 11,800 million transistors on a much larger 471 mm² die, resulting in just 25.1 million transistors per mm². The Ada card is not only smaller but also far more transistor-dense, enabling its higher compute throughput at a fraction of the power.

The RTX 4000 SFF features 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The Quadro P6000 has fewer shading units at 3,840 but more TMUs (240) and ROPs (96), and it has no RT or tensor cores at all. That missing hardware is critical: any workload using ray tracing or tensor operations will run on the Ada card alone. The FP16 capability further illustrates the gap: the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 19.17 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Quadro P6000 manages only 197.4 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. For mixed-precision or AI workloads, the Ada card is orders of magnitude faster.

The memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The RTX 4000 SFF uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, while the Quadro P6000 uses 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus. The wider bus gives the P6000 higher bandwidth, but the Ada card's newer memory type and smaller capacity reflect a trade-off favoring cost and power efficiency. The process node difference (5 nm versus 16 nm) also explains the power disparity: the RTX 4000 SFF has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors, while the Quadro P6000 draws 250 W and requires a single 8-pin connector.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall compute performance based on the benchmark data?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins both head-to-head tests, with an 88% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 48.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 117,088 versus 69,986 for the Quadro P6000.

Q: Does the Quadro P6000 have any advantages over the RTX 4000 SFF?

A: Yes, the Quadro P6000 offers 24 GB of memory compared to 20 GB, and its memory bandwidth is 432.8 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s. It also has a higher pixel rate (157.9 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s) and texture rate (394.8 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s).

Q: Can the Quadro P6000 handle ray tracing or AI workloads?

A: No, the Quadro P6000 has no RT cores or tensor cores. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation includes 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, making it the only card of the two capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor-based operations.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro P6000 has a TDP of 250 W and needs a single 8-pin power connector. The suggested PSU rating is 250 W for the Ada card versus 600 W for the P6000.

Q: Which card is more modern in terms of production status?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is listed as Active in production, with a release date of 2023-03-20. The Quadro P6000 is End-of-life, having been released on 2016-09-30.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test specifically?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 109,364, while the Quadro P6000 scores 73,590. This represents a 48.6% advantage for the Ada card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmarks paint a stark picture. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812, while the Quadro P6000 manages only 66,382. This 88% delta is the largest gap in the comparison. OpenCL is often used for general-purpose compute, and the Ada card's 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with its 5 nm process efficiency, allows it to crush the Pascal-era chip. The Quadro P6000's FP32 throughput of 12.63 TFLOPS is respectable for its generation, but it simply cannot keep pace.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is closer but still lopsided. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 109,364 versus 73,590 for the Quadro P6000, a 48.6% lead. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that benefits from modern driver optimizations and hardware features. The Ada card's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, alongside its RT cores, likely contributes to its superior performance in this test. The Quadro P6000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, but its lack of RT and tensor hardware limits its capabilities in newer rendering paths.

These wins are not narrow. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation takes both tests with deltas of 88% and 48.6%, respectively. The data shows no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Quadro P6000 comes out ahead. However, the margin in Vulkan is smaller than in OpenCL, suggesting that the P6000's higher texture and pixel rates (394.8 GTexel/s and 157.9 GPixel/s) provide some benefit in graphics-oriented tasks, even if it is insufficient to overcome the architectural deficit.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip on a 5 nm process, while the Quadro P6000 uses the GP102 chip on a 16 nm process. Transistor counts are 35,800 million versus 11,800 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 471 mm². The Ada card's transistor density is 121.8 million per mm², compared to 25.1 million per mm² for the P6000.

Clock speeds differ significantly: the RTX 4000 SFF has a base clock of 720 MHz and a boost of 1560 MHz, while the Quadro P6000 runs at 1506 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost. Memory configurations are also distinct: 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus versus 24 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, yielding bandwidths of 280.0 GB/s and 432.8 GB/s, respectively.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Ada card: 6,144 shading units versus 3,840, 192 TMUs versus 240, and 64 ROPs versus 96. The RTX 4000 SFF has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores; the Quadro P6000 has none. FP32 performance is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 12.63 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 197.4 GFLOPS, a 1:1 versus 1:64 ratio.

Power and physical specs diverge as well: the RTX 4000 SFF has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro P6000 has a 250 W TDP with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Ada card is shorter at 168 mm versus 267 mm and lower at 69 mm versus 111 mm. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 on the Ada card versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the P6000. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Production status is Active versus End-of-life, with release dates of 2023-03-20 and 2016-09-30. The Quadro P6000 has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, while the RTX 4000 SFF has no recorded launch MSRP.