NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two GPUs does not include a direct head-to-head benchmark run, so a side-by-side comparison must be drawn from their individual database scores. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server holds an average benchmark score of 5,996, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has an average score of 5,211. This places the RTX PRO 6000 roughly 15% ahead of the Quadro 4000M in the aggregate database metric, a meaningful gap given that the Quadro 4000M's nearest rivals sit within 1.4% of its score.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server's single recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 5,996. Its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered: the GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (delta of -0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001 (delta of -0.1%), the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (delta of 0.2%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (delta of 0.2%). This means the RTX PRO 6000 lands within a hair's breadth of those four cards, effectively matching them in the Steel Nomad test despite its vastly different hardware profile.

The Quadro 4000M's database entry uses Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 5,211. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236 (delta of -0.5%), the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5,161 (delta of 1%), the Quadro K3100M at 5,154 (delta of 1.1%), and the GeForce 940M at 5,284 (delta of -1.4%). The Quadro 4000M sits slightly below the GeForce 940M and GTX 760M, but edges out the R7 M260X and K3100M by about 1%. These deltas show that the Quadro 4000M is competitive within its own performance tier, though that tier is far removed from the RTX PRO 6000's.

In terms of percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server sits at the 34th percentile, while the Quadro 4000M is at the 30th percentile. The difference is modest in percentile terms, but the raw score gap of 785 points (5,996 vs 5,211) indicates that the RTX PRO 6000 delivers a substantial performance advantage in the workloads represented by these two different benchmark types. The data cannot confirm how the two would fare in the same test, as the RTX PRO 6000 was only evaluated with a DX12 workload and the Quadro 4000M only with an OpenCL workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has an average benchmark score of 5,996, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's 5,211. The RTX PRO 6000 leads by 785 points.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The RTX PRO 6000's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 770M with a score of 6,000 and a delta of -0.1%, meaning the RTX PRO 6000 is essentially tied with it. The Quadro 4000M's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 760M at 5,236 with a delta of -0.5%, so the Quadro 4000M trails that card by half a percent.

Q: What benchmark tests are recorded for each GPU?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has a single recorded result in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 5,996. The Quadro 4000M has a single result in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 5,211.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is listed as "Active" in production, while the Quadro 4000M is marked as "End-of-life."

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server was released on March 17, 2025. The Quadro 4000M was released on February 21, 2011, a gap of roughly 14 years.

Q: Do the two GPUs use the same architecture?

A: No. The RTX PRO 6000 uses Blackwell 2.0 architecture on the GB202 chip, while the Quadro 4000M uses the older Fermi architecture on the GF104 chip.

Architecture Differences

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and Quadro 4000M are built on fundamentally different architectures, separated by multiple generations of NVIDIA design. The RTX PRO 6000 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, also from TSMC but on a 40 nm process. This process node difference is stark: 5 nm versus 40 nm, which directly impacts transistor density and power efficiency.

Transistor counts reflect this generational leap. The RTX PRO 6000 packs 92,200 million transistors on a die size of 750 mm², yielding a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 4000M contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, with a density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. That is a 47-fold difference in transistor count and a roughly 20-fold difference in density, explaining why the RTX PRO 6000 can support far more compute resources.

The RTX PRO 6000 includes 24,064 shading units, 752 texture mapping units, 192 ROPs, 188 ray tracing cores, and 752 tensor cores. The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The RTX PRO 6000 also supports the DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set (12_2), while the Quadro 4000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RTX PRO 6000 adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which the Quadro 4000M lacks.

Memory technology also diverges sharply. The RTX PRO 6000 uses 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX PRO 6000's memory clock is listed at 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 4000M's memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). These figures show how memory bandwidth scales with architecture generation.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M has no recorded base or boost clock. The RTX PRO 6000's memory operates at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective speed, versus the Quadro 4000M's 625 MHz and 2.5 Gbps effective.

Shading units stand at 24,064 for the RTX PRO 6000 versus 336 for the Quadro 4000M. Texture mapping units are 752 versus 56, and ROPs are 192 versus 32. The RTX PRO 6000 has 188 ray tracing cores and 752 tensor cores; the Quadro 4000M has none listed for either. Pixel rate is 502.5 GPixel/s for the RTX PRO 6000 versus 6.650 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000M. Texture rate is 1,968.0 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 126.0 TFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS, a difference of nearly 200 times.

Power draw and physical form differ as well. The RTX PRO 6000 has a TDP of 600 W, requires a 1x 16-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 1000 W. It is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with four DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, uses no power connector, and comes as an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," and it has no recorded dimensions. The RTX PRO 6000 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). The RTX PRO 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

The Verdict

The database data points to a clear generational winner: the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server outperforms the Quadro 4000M in the aggregate benchmark score by 785 points, and it does so with a massively more advanced architecture. The RTX PRO 6000's 5,996 average score versus the Quadro 4000M's 5,211 represents a 15% lead, though the two were tested with different workloads, so a direct comparison is not fully confirmed.

The RTX PRO 6000 is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high-end compute resources, ray tracing, tensor operations, and large memory pools. Its 96 GB of GDDR7 memory, 24,064 shading units, and 126.0 TFLOPS FP32 performance indicate it is built for server-grade tasks. The Quadro 4000M, with 2 GB of GDDR5, 336 shading units, and 638.4 GFLOPS FP32, is suited to legacy mobile workstation roles, but its end-of-life status and Fermi architecture place it firmly in the past.

The percentile rankings show the RTX PRO 6000 at the 34th percentile and the Quadro 4000M at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database. This modest gap in percentile terms suggests that, within the database's pool, both cards sit in a similar relative band despite the raw score difference. However, the RTX PRO 6000's active production status and 2025 release date, versus the Quadro 4000M's 2011 release and end-of-life status, make the newer card the only reasonable choice for current or future deployments.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server wins in every measurable compute category recorded. Its FP32 throughput of 126.0 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS, making it the clear choice for tasks like simulation, rendering, and machine learning inference. The presence of 188 ray tracing cores and 752 tensor cores gives it capabilities the Quadro 4000M cannot match at all, as the older card has no such hardware. Its 96 GB memory capacity and 1.79 TB/s bandwidth are suited to large datasets, while the Quadro 4000M's 2 GB and 80.00 GB/s are limiting even for modest workloads.

The Quadro 4000M's advantages are limited to form factor and power draw. It consumes 100 W versus the RTX PRO 6000's 600 W, and it uses an MXM module format with no external power connector, making it suitable for portable or compact systems where the RTX PRO 6000's dual-slot, 267 mm length would not fit. Its display outputs are portable-device dependent, which is consistent with laptop or mobile workstation use. The RTX PRO 6000, by contrast, requires a 1000 W PSU and a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot, which ties it to desktop or server chassis.

In benchmark terms, the RTX PRO 6000's 5,996 score on 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 places it near the GeForce GTX 770M and Radeon RX 6400, while the Quadro 4000M's 5,211 on Geekbench OpenCL sits close to the GeForce GTX 760M and GeForce 940M. Neither card leads its immediate rival group by a wide margin, but the RTX PRO 6000's higher score and newer feature set make it the stronger pick for any task that can leverage its compute resources. The Quadro 4000M remains relevant only for legacy compatibility or low-power, space-constrained mobile deployments.