GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation decisively outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 in the majority of benchmark tests, winning 8 of 10 head-to-head comparisons. The most striking victory comes in Passmark DirectX 12, where the RTX 2000 Ada scores 71 versus the Quadro RTX 4000's 52, a commanding 36.5% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it represents a generational leap in modern API efficiency that directly translates to better performance in contemporary workloads.

Compute performance tells a similar story. In Passmark GPU Compute, the RTX 2000 Ada scores 7834 against the Quadro RTX 4000's 6176, a 26.8% improvement. The Geekbench OpenCL result reinforces this trend: the RTX 2000 Ada achieves 78074 points, 4.7% ahead of the Quadro RTX 4000's 74540. Vulkan performance follows suit, with the RTX 2000 Ada scoring 83360 versus 78844, a 5.7% lead. These results indicate that the Ada Lovelace architecture delivers superior raw throughput in both compute and graphics APIs.

The RTX 2000 Ada also dominates in DirectX 11 and DirectX 9 legacy tests. In Passmark DirectX 11, it scores 138 versus 128 (7.8% ahead), and in Passmark DirectX 9 it scores 216 versus 205 (5.4% ahead). Even in 2D performance, the RTX 2000 Ada excels: Passmark G2D shows a 26.7% advantage (1072 versus 846). The overall Passmark G3D score of 16927 for the RTX 2000 Ada versus 15117 for the Quadro RTX 4000 represents a 12% win, confirming the Ada card as the superior all-around performer.

However, the Quadro RTX 4000 does claim two victories. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1873 against the RTX 2000 Ada's 1767, a 5.7% edge. This is a notable result, as it suggests the older Turing card holds its own in this specific synthetic workload. Additionally, the Quadro RTX 4000 wins Passmark DirectX 10 with a score of 108 versus 82, a substantial 24.1% lead. These wins indicate that the Quadro RTX 4000 retains strengths in certain legacy or specific DirectX paths, even as it loses the broader performance battle.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural generations. The RTX 2000 Ada uses the AD107 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip on a 12 nm process, with 13,600 million transistors spread across a much larger 545 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 118.9M per mm² for the Ada card versus 25.0M per mm² for the Turing card, the Ada chip is four times denser, explaining its efficiency advantage.

The RTX 2000 Ada features 2816 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The Quadro RTX 4000 counters with 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Although the Ada card has more shaders, the Turing card has more TMUs and ROPs, which contributes to its higher texture rate of 222.5 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s for the Ada card. Pixel rates are nearly identical: 102.2 GPixel/s for Ada versus 98.88 GPixel/s for Turing.

Ray tracing and tensor core counts diverge sharply. The RTX 2000 Ada has 22 RT cores and 88 tensor cores, while the Quadro RTX 4000 has 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. This gives the Turing card a significant advantage in raw RT and tensor hardware, which could matter for specific workloads such as AI inference or ray-traced rendering. However, the Ada architecture's newer design may extract more efficiency per core.

Clock speeds favor the Ada card decisively. The RTX 2000 Ada boosts to 2130 MHz with a 1620 MHz base clock, while the Quadro RTX 4000 boosts to only 1545 MHz with a 1005 MHz base clock. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, drives the Ada card's FP32 performance of 12.00 TFLOPS versus 7.119 TFLOPS for the Turing card. Interestingly, FP16 performance flips: the Quadro RTX 4000 achieves 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) for the Ada card.

Memory configurations also differ substantially. The RTX 2000 Ada offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 416.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Ada card provides double the capacity but significantly lower bandwidth, a tradeoff that favors large datasets over high-throughput streaming.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins decisively in compute. Its FP32 throughput is 12.00 TFLOPS versus 7.119 TFLOPS for the Quadro RTX 4000, and in Passmark GPU Compute it scores 7834 versus 6176, a 26.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 4000 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins two tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1873 versus 1767, 5.7% ahead) and Passmark DirectX 10 (108 versus 82, 24.1% ahead). These are the only head-to-head wins for the Quadro RTX 4000.

Q: How do the memory capacities and bandwidths compare?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 256.0 GB/s, whereas the Quadro RTX 4000 has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus delivering 416.0 GB/s. The Ada card offers double the capacity but 38.5% less bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada has a TDP of 70 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro RTX 4000 has a TDP of 160 W, requires one 8-pin connector, and needs a 450 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada has 2816 shading units versus 2304 for the Quadro RTX 4000, a 22% advantage in shader count that contributes to its higher FP32 performance.

Q: Is the RTX 2000 Ada still in production?

A: Yes, the RTX 2000 Ada is marked as Active in production status, while the Quadro RTX 4000 is End-of-life. This means the Ada card is the current, supported option.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation for most users. It wins 8 of 10 benchmarks, including substantial victories in modern DirectX 12 (36.5% ahead), GPU compute (26.8% ahead), and overall Passmark G3D (12% ahead). Its 16 GB memory capacity doubles the Quadro RTX 4000's 8 GB, making it the better choice for large datasets and memory-intensive workloads. The Ada card also consumes far less power (70 W TDP versus 160 W), requires no external power connectors, and is built on a significantly more advanced 5 nm process.

The Quadro RTX 4000 retains niche advantages. Its 416.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 62.5% higher than the Ada card's 256.0 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-bound tasks. It also has more RT cores (36 versus 22) and tensor cores (288 versus 88), potentially offering better performance in ray tracing or AI inference workloads. Additionally, it wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, suggesting it still has competitive strength in certain synthetic scenarios.

For professionals prioritizing modern compute performance, memory capacity, power efficiency, and long-term support, the RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear winner. For those specifically needing maximum memory bandwidth, higher FP16 throughput (14.24 TFLOPS versus 12.00), or the single-slot form factor, the Quadro RTX 4000 remains a viable option, but it is an older, end-of-life product with significantly lower overall benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX 2000 Ada Generation | Quadro RTX 4000 |

|----------------|-------------------------|-----------------|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Turing |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 13,600 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 545 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1620 MHz | 1005 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2130 MHz | 1545 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 416.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2816 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 88 | 144 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 22 | 36 |

| Tensor Cores | 88 | 288 |

| FP32 Performance | 12.00 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) | 14.24 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 160 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation dominates in every modern compute and graphics workload except two specific tests. Its strengths lie in DirectX 12 (36.5% ahead), GPU compute (26.8% ahead), 2D performance (26.7% ahead), and overall 3D performance (12% ahead). It also wins in DirectX 11 (7.8% ahead), DirectX 9 (5.4% ahead), OpenCL (4.7% ahead), and Vulkan (5.7% ahead). With 16 GB of memory, it is the better choice for machine learning datasets, large 3D scenes, and multitasking across multiple GPU-accelerated applications. Its 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it ideal for compact workstations or systems with limited power budgets. At a launch MSRP of 649 USD, it offers superior performance metrics per unit of power consumed.

The Quadro RTX 4000 wins specifically in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (5.7% ahead) and Passmark DirectX 10 (24.1% ahead). Its 416.0 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the Ada card by 62.5%, making it the better option for bandwidth-intensive tasks such as high-resolution texture streaming or large data transfers. Its 14.24 TFLOPS FP16 performance (versus 12.00 for Ada) gives it an edge in workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The single-slot design and 288 tensor cores also make it attractive for dense multi-GPU configurations where space is constrained. However, with only 8 GB of memory, a 160 W TDP, and end-of-life status, its use case is increasingly limited to legacy applications or specialized bandwidth-dependent tasks.