NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation compare to the RTX 4000 Ada Generation in raw benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada Generation leads both recorded benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 311,629 compared to 146,593 for the RTX 4000 Ada, a 112.6% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 6000 Ada scores 262,845 versus 123,842, a 112.2% advantage.

Q: Where does each card rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada Generation sits at the 99th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 287,237. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation places at the 95th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 135,218.

Q: What is the closest competitor to the RTX 6000 Ada Generation?

A: The NVIDIA L40 is the closest rival, with an average score of 284,111, putting it just 1.1% behind the RTX 6000 Ada. The NVIDIA L40S is 2.9% ahead, while the AMD Instinct MI300X sits 9.7% ahead. The NVIDIA L20 trails by 14.4%.

Q: What is the closest competitor to the RTX 4000 Ada Generation?

A: The NVIDIA A10M is effectively tied, with an average score of 135,230, a 0.0% difference. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is 0.1% behind, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo is 0.4% behind, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 is 0.9% behind.

Q: How do the two cards differ in memory configuration?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 960.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 360.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada Generation has a 300 W TDP and suggests a 700 W power supply. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 130 W TDP and suggests a 300 W power supply. Both use a single 16-pin power connector.

The Verdict

The data separates these two workstation cards by a wide margin, and the choice comes down to workload scale rather than any ambiguity in performance. The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is the clear performance leader, doubling the RTX 4000 Ada in both recorded OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. For users who need maximum compute throughput, the RTX 6000 Ada is the only option of the two.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation, however, is not a weak card. It occupies the 95th percentile among all GPUs, and its average score of 135,218 places it in the same band as several capable workstation rivals. The NVIDIA A10M matches it exactly, and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 trails by only 0.1%. This suggests the RTX 4000 Ada is a solid mid-range workstation choice for users who do not require the top-tier compute capacity of the RTX 6000 Ada.

For dense rendering, large model training, or any workload that scales with memory capacity and bandwidth, the RTX 6000 Ada is the appropriate pick. Its 48 GB frame buffer and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth provide 2.4 times the memory capacity and 2.7 times the bandwidth of the RTX 4000 Ada. The RTX 4000 Ada, with 20 GB and 360.0 GB/s, suits smaller datasets and lighter compute tasks where its lower 130 W TDP and single-slot footprint are advantages.

The production status also matters for long-term planning. The RTX 6000 Ada is listed as end-of-life, while the RTX 4000 Ada remains active. Users who need sustained availability should factor that into procurement decisions. The RTX 6000 Ada also has a recorded launch MSRP of 6,799 USD, while the RTX 4000 Ada has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the RTX 6000 Ada Generation wins both recorded tests, and the margins are nearly identical. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 6000 Ada scores 311,629 against 146,593 for the RTX 4000 Ada, a 112.6% difference. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 6000 Ada scores 262,845 against 123,842, a 112.2% difference.

These two tests measure different API paths, but the performance gap is consistent. OpenCL and Vulkan both show the RTX 6000 Ada delivering roughly 2.1 times the score of the RTX 4000 Ada. That consistency suggests the advantage is structural, not workload-specific. The RTX 6000 Ada has 18,176 shading units, 568 texture mapping units, and 192 ROPs, compared to 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs on the RTX 4000 Ada. The raw execution resources are roughly three times larger on the RTX 6000 Ada.

The RTX 6000 Ada also carries 142 ray tracing cores and 568 tensor cores, versus 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores on the RTX 4000 Ada. The FP32 throughput figures reflect this gap: 91.06 TFLOPS versus 26.73 TFLOPS. The RTX 6000 Ada is 3.4 times faster in raw FP32 compute, yet the benchmark delta is only 112.6%, meaning real-world API overhead and memory behavior compress the theoretical advantage.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The RTX 6000 Ada achieves 481.0 GPixel/s and 1,422.8 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4000 Ada achieves 139.2 GPixel/s and 417.6 GTexel/s. These are 3.5 and 3.4 times higher respectively, again exceeding the benchmark delta. The recorded scores therefore understate the peak throughput difference, likely due to test limitations rather than architectural weakness.

Specification Differences

The two cards share the same Ada Lovelace architecture, 5 nm process node, TSMC foundry, PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and display output configuration of 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are listed as predecessors to Workstation Ampere and successors to Blackwell PRO W.

Beyond those commonalities, nearly every physical specification differs. The RTX 6000 Ada uses the AD102 chip, while the RTX 4000 Ada uses the AD104 chip. The RTX 6000 Ada has 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, with a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The RTX 4000 Ada has 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 121.8M per mm². The RTX 6000 Ada die is more than twice the area and packs more than twice the transistors.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The RTX 6000 Ada has a lower base clock of 915 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2505 MHz. The RTX 4000 Ada has a higher base clock of 1500 MHz but a lower boost clock of 2175 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the RTX 6000 Ada runs at 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective, while the RTX 4000 Ada runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor the RTX 6000 Ada significantly. It has 48 GB versus 20 GB, a 384-bit bus versus 160-bit, and 960.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s. The RTX 6000 Ada is dual-slot, while the RTX 4000 Ada is single-slot. The RTX 6000 Ada is 267 mm long (10.5 inches), while the RTX 4000 Ada is 245 mm long (9.6 inches). Both are 112 mm (4.4 inches) tall.

Power draw is another major divider. The RTX 6000 Ada has a 300 W TDP and suggests a 700 W power supply, while the RTX 4000 Ada has a 130 W TDP and suggests a 300 W power supply. The RTX 6000 Ada uses the AD102 chip with 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 142 ray tracing cores, and 568 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 Ada uses the AD104 chip with 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 192 tensor cores.

Release timing also differs. The RTX 6000 Ada was released on 2022-12-02, while the RTX 4000 Ada was released on 2023-08-08. Both belong to the same Workstation Ada generation and the GeForce 60-series and GeForce 40-series respectively.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on Ada Lovelace architecture, the same 5 nm TSMC process, and share identical API support. The architectural differences are therefore a matter of scale and chip design rather than generation. The RTX 6000 Ada uses the AD102 chip, the largest Ada Lovelace workstation die, while the RTX 4000 Ada uses the AD104 chip, a smaller configuration.

The transistor count difference is stark: 76,300 million on the RTX 6000 Ada versus 35,800 million on the RTX 4000 Ada. Die area is 609 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical, 125.3M per mm² versus 121.8M per mm², indicating the same manufacturing process but different chip sizes.

The compute architecture scales proportionally. The RTX 6000 Ada has three times the shading units, three times the TMUs, three times the ROPs, three times the ray tracing cores, and three times the tensor cores compared to the RTX 4000 Ada. Specifically, 18,176 versus 6,144 shading units, 568 versus 192 TMUs, 192 versus 64 ROPs, 142 versus 48 ray tracing cores, and 568 versus 192 tensor cores.

The FP32 and FP16 figures are both 91.06 TFLOPS on the RTX 6000 Ada and 26.73 TFLOPS on the RTX 4000 Ada, with a 1:1 ratio on both cards. This indicates identical FP32/FP16 execution behavior, just at different scales.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The RTX 6000 Ada uses a 384-bit bus with 48 GB of GDDR6, while the RTX 4000 Ada uses a 160-bit bus with 20 GB. The RTX 6000 Ada memory clock is 2500 MHz with 20 Gbps effective, versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective on the RTX 4000 Ada. The bandwidth gap is 960.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s. The memory clock difference is modest, but the bus width difference drives the large bandwidth gap.

Both cards use the same display outputs, PCIe interface, and power connector type. The RTX 6000 Ada requires a dual-slot cooler and a 700 W suggested power supply, while the RTX 4000 Ada fits in a single slot and suggests a 300 W power supply. The physical dimensions reflect this: 267 mm versus 245 mm in length.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 6000 Ada Generation wins every recorded benchmark against the RTX 4000 Ada Generation. It also wins on every compute resource metric: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, ray tracing cores, tensor cores, FP32 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth. For workloads that are compute-bound or memory-bound, the RTX 6000 Ada is the superior choice.

The RTX 6000 Ada is best suited for large-scale rendering, machine learning training with large models, scientific simulation, and any task where the 48 GB frame buffer prevents out-of-memory failures. The 960.0 GB/s bandwidth supports data-intensive workloads that would stall on narrower memory interfaces. Its 99th percentile ranking among all GPUs and average score of 287,237 confirm its position near the top of the database.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in efficiency and physical footprint. Its 130 W TDP is less than half the RTX 6000 Ada's 300 W, and its 300 W suggested power supply requirement is far lower. The single-slot design and shorter 245 mm length make it easier to fit in constrained chassis. Its 95th percentile ranking and average score of 135,218 show it is still a strong performer for mid-range work.

The RTX 4000 Ada matches its nearest rivals almost exactly. The NVIDIA A10M is 0.0% away, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is 0.1% behind, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo is 0.4% behind, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 is 0.9% behind. This tight clustering means the RTX 4000 Ada is competitively positioned within its performance tier, even though it cannot challenge the RTX 6000 Ada.

For users who prioritize raw throughput and have the power budget, the RTX 6000 Ada is the clear winner. For users who need a capable workstation card with lower power draw, a smaller physical footprint, and active production status, the RTX 4000 Ada is the appropriate pick. The RTX 6000 Ada's end-of-life status may influence long-term availability, while the RTX 4000 Ada remains active in the database.