GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The RTX 4000 Ada, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, posts an average benchmark score of 135,218, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro RTX 6000, based on the older Turing architecture, averages 101,872, sitting at the 94th percentile. The head-to-head results are split, with each card claiming one benchmark victory, but the magnitude of those wins differs dramatically, the RTX 4000 Ada wins OpenCL by 97.6%, while the Quadro RTX 6000 takes Vulkan by a narrow 4.4%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most lopsided result in this comparison. The RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593, nearly doubling the Quadro RTX 6000’s 74,179. That 97.6% delta is enormous, reflecting the generational leap in compute throughput. The RTX 4000 Ada’s FP32 performance of 26.73 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro RTX 6000’s 16.31 TFLOPS, and that raw compute advantage translates directly into OpenCL workloads that scale with shader throughput. The RTX 4000 Ada packs 6,144 shading units versus 4,608 on the Quadro RTX 6000, and while the older card has more texture mapping units (288 vs. 192) and more ROPs (96 vs. 64), those advantages do not offset the shader-core deficit in OpenCL compute.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story. The Quadro RTX 6000 scores 129,564, edging out the RTX 4000 Ada’s 123,842 by 4.4%. This is a surprising result given the RTX 4000 Ada’s newer architecture and higher FP32 throughput. The Quadro RTX 6000’s advantage in Vulkan likely stems from its larger memory bus (384-bit vs. 160-bit) and substantially higher memory bandwidth (672.0 GB/s vs. 360.0 GB/s). Vulkan workloads often stress memory subsystem performance, and the Quadro RTX 6000’s 24 GB frame buffer with nearly double the bandwidth provides a tangible edge in bandwidth-bound scenarios. The RTX 4000 Ada’s FP16 performance is also capped at 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the Quadro RTX 6000 reaches 32.62 TFLOPS with a 2:1 FP16 ratio, which may help in certain Vulkan rendering paths.

Netting out the two tests, each card secures one win. The RTX 4000 Ada’s OpenCL victory is decisive and broad, while the Quadro RTX 6000’s Vulkan win is narrow but real. For users whose workloads lean heavily on OpenCL compute, the RTX 4000 Ada is categorically faster. For Vulkan-based rendering, the Quadro RTX 6000 holds a modest but measurable lead.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The RTX 4000 Ada uses the AD104 chip fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. The Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on a 12 nm process, with 18,600 million transistors spread across a much larger 754 mm² die. The density difference is stark, the RTX 4000 Ada achieves 121.8 million transistors per mm², versus just 24.7 million on the Quadro RTX 6000. This five-nanometer shrink allows the newer card to deliver more compute in a smaller physical package.

Core configuration diverges significantly. The RTX 4000 Ada features 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 6000 counters with 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The older card actually has more texture units, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores, but its shader count is 25% lower. Clock speeds favor the newer card: the RTX 4000 Ada boosts to 2175 MHz versus 1770 MHz on the Quadro RTX 6000, with base clocks of 1500 MHz and 1440 MHz respectively. The higher clocks, combined with more shaders, produce the RTX 4000 Ada’s FP32 advantage.

Memory configurations reflect different design priorities. The RTX 4000 Ada ships with 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 360.0 GB/s at 18 Gbps effective. The Quadro RTX 6000 offers 24 GB on a 384-bit bus, achieving 672.0 GB/s at 14 Gbps effective. The older card’s bandwidth advantage is enormous, nearly double, but comes with a wider, more power-hungry memory subsystem. The RTX 4000 Ada compensates with a smaller, faster memory implementation that fits within a 130 W TDP, compared to the Quadro RTX 6000’s 260 W TDP.

Feature support is similar on paper, with both cards supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4000 Ada uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are nearly identical, with both offering 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, though the Quadro RTX 6000 adds a USB Type-C port. Physical design differs: the RTX 4000 Ada is a single-slot card measuring 245 mm, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm, with the newer card using a 1x 16-pin power connector versus the older card’s 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin setup.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage FP32 throughput. Its 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with a 97.6% OpenCL benchmark advantage, makes it suitable for scientific computing, simulations, and any application that can saturate shader cores. The newer 5 nm process also means significantly lower power draw, 130 W versus 260 W, which reduces cooling requirements and system power supply demands (300 W suggested PSU versus 600 W). The single-slot form factor and shorter 245 mm length make it easier to fit into dense workstation builds or multi-GPU configurations.

The Quadro RTX 6000 wins in scenarios where memory capacity and bandwidth matter more than raw compute. Its 24 GB frame buffer is 20% larger than the RTX 4000 Ada’s 20 GB, and its 672.0 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double. Vulkan workloads, as evidenced by the 4.4% benchmark win, benefit from this memory subsystem advantage. The card also has more RT cores (72 vs. 48) and more tensor cores (576 vs. 192), which could benefit ray-traced rendering and AI inference workloads that scale with those dedicated units, although the RTX 4000 Ada’s newer tensor core design may offer better per-core efficiency. The Quadro RTX 6000’s 96 ROPs and 288 TMUs also give it an edge in fill-rate-bound rendering tasks.

For users with legacy PCIe 3.0 systems, the Quadro RTX 6000 avoids the need for a platform upgrade, though it draws more power and requires a larger physical footprint. The RTX 4000 Ada’s PCIe 4.0 interface is backward compatible but won’t reach full bandwidth on older platforms. Production status matters too: the RTX 4000 Ada is active and current, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is end-of-life, which affects long-term driver support and availability.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation averages 135,218 across benchmarks, placing it in the 95th percentile. The Quadro RTX 6000 averages 101,872, at the 94th percentile.

Q: How big is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 74,179 for the Quadro RTX 6000, a 97.6% advantage for the newer card.

Q: Does the Quadro RTX 6000 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench Vulkan with 129,564 versus 123,842, a 4.4% margin over the RTX 4000 Ada.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada has 20 GB with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 160-bit bus. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB with 672.0 GB/s on a 384-bit bus.

Q: How do power requirements compare?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada has a 130 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a 260 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The RTX 4000 Ada is listed as Active, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is End-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Turing |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 1440 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2175 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 18 Gbps effective | 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 192 | 288 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 48 | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | 576 |

| FP32 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 417.6 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 130 W | 260 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions (Length) | 245 mm (9.6 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

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

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2018-08-12 |

| Launch MSRP |, | 6,299 USD |