NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and NVIDIA RTX A4000 represent two distinct generations of professional workstation graphics, separated by nearly three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a surprisingly close contest: the Quadro RTX 8000 wins 5 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, while the RTX A4000 claims 4. However, the margins and the nature of those wins reveal very different design philosophies and use-case suitability. The Quadro RTX 8000, built on the older 12 nm Turing architecture, leverages its massive memory pool and raw compute throughput to dominate legacy DirectX workloads. The RTX A4000, on the other hand, uses the efficiency of 8 nm Ampere to post higher raw scores in modern API tests and 2D operations, while consuming far less power.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly along generational and workload lines. The Quadro RTX 8000 asserts its dominance in the PassMark DirectX legacy suite, taking decisive victories in DirectX 10, 11, and 12. Its win margins are substantial: 8.7% in DirectX 10, 19% in DirectX 11, and 9.7% in DirectX 12. These are the tests that stress traditional rasterization pipelines and large framebuffers, which aligns with the Quadro RTX 8000's 48 GB GDDR6 memory and 384-bit bus. It also edges out the A4000 in the aggregate PassMark G3D score (19,799 vs. 19,459, a 1.7% lead) and in GPU compute (9,992 vs. 9,760, a 2.4% lead), suggesting that for pure 3D rendering and general compute tasks, the older card still holds a slight edge.

The RTX A4000 wins in the Geekbench tests and specific PassMark categories. It takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 105,739 versus 101,883, a 3.6% advantage, and the Geekbench Vulkan test with 127,645 versus 122,637, a 3.9% lead. These are modern, compute-heavy workloads that leverage the A4000's higher FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS vs. 16.31 TFLOPS) and newer Ampere architecture. The A4000 also wins decisively in PassMark DirectX 9 (240 vs. 211, a 12.1% margin) and PassMark G2D (1,024 vs. 866, a 15.4% margin). The G2D result is particularly telling: the A4000 is significantly faster at 2D operations, which are often bottlenecked by memory latency and driver efficiency rather than raw fillrate. The DirectX 9 win suggests the Ampere architecture has better optimization for older API paths.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different process nodes and architectures. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, packing 18,600 million transistors onto a 754 mm² die. The RTX A4000 uses the GA104 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, with 17,400 million transistors on a much smaller 392 mm² die. This explains the transistor density difference: the A4000 achieves 44.4M transistors per mm², nearly double the Quadro RTX 8000's 24.7M per mm². The A4000 is the denser, more modern part.

Despite having fewer transistors, the A4000 features more shading units (6,144 vs. 4,608) and higher FP32 performance (19.17 TFLOPS vs. 16.31 TFLOPS). However, the Quadro RTX 8000 counters with more TMUs (288 vs. 192), more RT cores (72 vs. 48), and significantly more tensor cores (576 vs. 192). The memory subsystems diverge sharply: the Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the A4000 has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus, yielding 448.0 GB/s. The RTX A4000 also has a much lower 140 W TDP compared to the Quadro RTX 8000's 260 W, and it uses a single 6-pin power connector versus the Quadro's 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin configuration. The A4000 is a single-slot card, while the Quadro RTX 8000 is dual-slot.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory, and does it matter for benchmarks?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RTX A4000 has 16 GB. The Quadro also has a wider 384-bit bus, providing 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the A4000's 448.0 GB/s. This memory advantage likely contributes to the Quadro's wins in DirectX 11 and 12 tests, where large textures and framebuffers are common.

Q: Why does the RTX A4000 win in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan?

A: The A4000 has higher raw FP32 compute (19.17 TFLOPS vs. 16.31 TFLOPS) and more shading units (6,144 vs. 4,608). Geekbench tests are compute-heavy and scale with these factors. The A4000's 3.6% lead in OpenCL and 3.9% lead in Vulkan reflect this architectural advantage in modern compute paths.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the RTX A4000 is significantly faster?

A: Yes, the RTX A4000 wins PassMark G2D by a 15.4% margin (1,024 vs. 866) and PassMark DirectX 9 by 12.1% (240 vs. 211). These are notable wins, suggesting better memory latency handling and driver optimization for 2D and legacy DirectX workloads in the Ampere architecture.

Q: Which card has better ray tracing hardware?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores, while the RTX A4000 has 48. However, the A4000's RT cores are from the newer Ampere generation, which typically offers better per-core efficiency. The benchmark data does not include a dedicated ray tracing test, so the practical impact cannot be quantified here.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The RTX A4000 has a 140 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Quadro RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU. The A4000 is significantly more power-efficient, which is consistent with its smaller die and newer process node.

Q: What is the overall performance percentile for each card?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 sits at the 74th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A4000 sits at the 72nd. Their average benchmark scores are 28,421 and 26,683, respectively, with the Quadro leading by 1.4% overall.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every major specification. The process node differs: 12 nm for the Quadro RTX 8000 versus 8 nm for the RTX A4000. The chip designations are TU102 and GA104, respectively. The Quadro RTX 8000 has a larger die (754 mm² vs. 392 mm²) but lower transistor density (24.7M / mm² vs. 44.4M / mm²). Clock speeds are also different: the Quadro has a higher base clock (1,395 MHz vs. 735 MHz) and boost clock (1,770 MHz vs. 1,560 MHz). Memory capacity is a major split (48 GB vs. 16 GB), as is bus width (384-bit vs. 256-bit) and bandwidth (672.0 GB/s vs. 448.0 GB/s). The shading unit count favors the A4000 (6,144 vs. 4,608), but the Quadro RTX 8000 has more TMUs (288 vs. 192) and RT cores (72 vs. 48). The tensor core count is heavily in the Quadro's favor (576 vs. 192). The pixel rate is slightly higher on the Quadro (169.9 GPixel/s vs. 149.8 GPixel/s), but the texture rate is much higher (509.8 GTexel/s vs. 299.5 GTexel/s). Power requirements differ substantially (260 W vs. 140 W TDP), as do the power connectors (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs. 1x 6-pin) and slot width (Dual-slot vs. Single-slot). The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A4000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant win for the Quadro RTX 8000 is in PassMark DirectX 11, where it scores 188 against the A4000's 158, a 19% advantage. This is the largest margin in any test and suggests that the Quadro's larger memory bandwidth and texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s vs. 299.5 GTexel/s) provide a substantial benefit in this API. The Quadro also wins DirectX 12 by 9.7% (79 vs. 72) and DirectX 10 by 8.7% (137 vs. 126), reinforcing its strength in traditional rasterization workloads. In the aggregate G3D test, the Quadro leads narrowly by 1.7% (19,799 vs. 19,459), and in GPU compute it leads by 2.4% (9,992 vs. 9,760).

The RTX A4000's biggest win is in PassMark G2D, where it scores 1,024 versus 866, a 15.4% margin. This indicates superior 2D performance, which is often critical for desktop and CAD applications. It also wins DirectX 9 by 12.1% (240 vs. 211), showing better optimization for older APIs. In the Geekbench tests, the A4000 wins OpenCL by 3.6% (105,739 vs. 101,883) and Vulkan by 3.9% (127,645 vs. 122,637). These wins align with its higher FP32 throughput and newer architecture, which excels in compute-heavy and modern API workloads.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear split based on workload priorities. The Quadro RTX 8000 is the better choice for environments that rely on legacy DirectX 10, 11, and 12 applications, where it posts wins of 8.7%, 19%, and 9.7% respectively. Its 48 GB memory pool and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for massive datasets, and its higher texture rate (509.8 GTexel/s) supports texture-heavy rendering. It also has more RT cores (72) and tensor cores (576), which may benefit ray tracing and AI-assisted workflows, though this is not directly benchmarked.

The RTX A4000 is the better choice for modern compute workloads and 2D-centric tasks. Its wins in Geekbench OpenCL (3.6%) and Vulkan (3.9%) demonstrate superior performance in contemporary APIs. The 15.4% lead in G2D makes it the clear pick for desktop and interface-heavy applications. Its lower 140 W TDP and single-slot design make it easier to integrate into dense workstation configurations, and its higher FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS) gives it an edge in raw compute.

For users prioritizing maximum memory capacity and legacy API performance, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the data-backed choice. For those needing modern compute efficiency, faster 2D performance, and lower power draw, the RTX A4000 is the superior option. The overall average benchmark scores are close (28,421 vs. 26,683, a 1.4% margin), but the distribution of wins makes the decision dependent on the specific software stack.