NVIDIA Quadro K4000 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly along generational lines. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server wins every category that matters for modern compute workloads, while the Quadro K4000 retains only the legacy niches where its older feature set remains sufficient. In the single shared benchmark context available, the RTX PRO 6000 scores 5996 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, while the Quadro K4000 has no entry for that test — its available scores come from Geekbench Metal (4166), OpenCL (6816), and Vulkan (6964).

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the clear winner for ray tracing, tensor-heavy inference, and high-resolution rendering. Its 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores are entirely absent from the Quadro K4000, which predates both hardware units. The RTX PRO 6000 also delivers 126.0 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 — a difference of roughly 101x. For any workload that scales with raw shading power, the newer card dominates outright.

The Quadro K4000 wins only in the narrow sense of legacy compatibility and lower system demands. Its 80 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for older workstations with modest power delivery. The K4000 also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, which means it can still run some modern APIs, albeit with reduced feature levels compared to the RTX PRO 6000's DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

Benchmark percentiles tell an interesting story: both cards sit at the 34th percentile against all GPUs. This means the RTX PRO 6000's raw power is not reflected in its aggregate standing relative to the entire GPU landscape — likely due to the limited benchmark data available. The Quadro K4000's nearest rivals include the Quadro K4000M (deltaPct -0.1) and AMD FirePro W4100 (deltaPct -0.1), while the RTX PRO 6000's rivals include the GeForce GTX 770M (deltaPct -0.1) and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (deltaPct -0.1). These close deltas indicate that both cards cluster near similar average benchmark scores despite their massive architectural gap.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is enormous. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server uses the GB202 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. The Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with just 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: 122.9M transistors per mm² for the Blackwell chip versus 11.5M per mm² for Kepler.

Memory technology has advanced two generations. The RTX PRO 6000 uses 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth. The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 134.8 GB/s. That is roughly 13.3x more bandwidth for the newer card. The RTX PRO 6000 also has a memory clock of 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective), while the K4000's memory runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).

Compute resources differ by orders of magnitude. The RTX PRO 6000 has 24,064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RTX PRO 6000's 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores have no equivalent in the K4000, which launched before ray tracing and tensor acceleration were integrated into NVIDIA's professional lineup. Pixel rate is 502.5 GPixel/s for the newer card versus 12.96 GPixel/s for the older one; texture rate is 1,968.0 GTexel/s versus 51.84 GTexel/s.

Interface and power delivery also differ substantially. The RTX PRO 6000 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The RTX PRO 6000 requires a 600 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector and a suggested 1000 W PSU; the K4000 draws 80 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 250 W PSU. Display outputs are modern on the newer card — 4x DisplayPort 2.1b — versus 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 on the K4000.

The RTX PRO 6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both share OpenGL 4.6, but the newer card's API support is strictly more advanced.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server has 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth from 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus. The Quadro K4000 has 134.8 GB/s from 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus — a difference of roughly 13.3x.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 support ray tracing?

A: No. The K4000 has no RT cores listed in its specifications. The RTX PRO 6000 has 188 RT cores. Ray tracing is exclusively available on the newer card.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has 92,200 million transistors, while the K4000 has 2,540 million. That is approximately 36.3x more transistors on the newer chip.

Q: Which card is better for legacy OpenGL workloads?

A: Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, so either can handle OpenGL applications. However, the RTX PRO 6000's far higher compute throughput means it will process those workloads faster, even if the API version matches.

Q: Are these cards comparable in performance?

A: No. The RTX PRO 6000 produces 126.0 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 — roughly 101x more. The K4000's average benchmark score of 5982 is within 0.2% of the RTX PRO 6000's 5996, but that is driven by the sparse benchmark data, not real-world parity.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RTX PRO 6000 has a 600 W TDP with a suggested 1000 W PSU. The K4000 has an 80 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU. The newer card draws 7.5x more power.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server | Quadro K4000 |

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

| Chip | GB202 | GK106 |

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 122.9M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1590 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 2617 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 96 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 512 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.79 TB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 24,064 | 768 |

| TMUs | 752 | 64 |

| ROPs | 192 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 188 | null |

| Tensor Cores | 752 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 502.5 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,968.0 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 126.0 TFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 126.0 TFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 600 W | 80 W |

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

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

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

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

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | null |

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

| Release Date | 2025-03-17 | 2013-02-28 |

| Predecessor | Server Hopper | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Server Rubin | Quadro Maxwell |

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no shared benchmark results between the two cards in the data. The RTX PRO 6000 has a single benchmark entry: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 5996. The Quadro K4000 has three Geekbench entries: Metal (4166), OpenCL (6816), and Vulkan (6964). Direct comparison is therefore limited to average scores and nearest-rival analysis.

The RTX PRO 6000's average benchmark score is 5996. The Quadro K4000's average is 5982 — a difference of just 0.2%. This near-parity is misleading, as the two cards were tested with entirely different workloads. The RTX PRO 6000's Steel Nomad DX12 result represents a modern DirectX 12 Ultimate test, while the K4000's Geekbench scores reflect older compute benchmarks.

In the nearest-rival context, the RTX PRO 6000 sits 0.1% behind the GeForce GTX 770M (6000) and 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6001), while sitting 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987) and 0.2% ahead of the Quadro K4000M (5986). The K4000 sits 0.1% behind the K4000M (5986) and FirePro W4100 (5987), 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970), and 0.2% behind the RTX PRO 6000 (5996).

The lack of head-to-head benchmarks means the performance gap must be inferred from raw specifications. The FP32 compute delta alone — 126.0 TFLOPS versus 1,244.2 GFLOPS — makes any direct benchmark comparison academic. The RTX PRO 6000 also has 31x more shading units (24,064 vs 768), 11.75x more TMUs (752 vs 64), and 8x more ROPs (192 vs 24). These are not incremental improvements; they represent a fundamentally different class of hardware.

# The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity: the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the superior product by every measurable compute metric. Its 126.0 TFLOPS FP32 performance dwarfs the K4000's 1,244.2 GFLOPS. Its 96 GB of GDDR7 memory with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth renders the K4000's 3 GB GDDR5 with 134.8 GB/s obsolete for any modern workload. The inclusion of 188 RT cores and 752 tensor cores means the newer card can handle ray tracing and AI inference, which the K4000 cannot do at all.

The Quadro K4000's only advantages are its 80 W TDP, single-slot profile, and compatibility with older systems that lack PCIe 5.0 or high-wattage PSUs. Its 28 nm process and Kepler architecture are from 2013, and its end-of-life production status confirms NVIDIA has moved on. For legacy workstation deployments where the software stack requires a Kepler-era GPU and power delivery is limited to 250 W, the K4000 remains a functional option. But that is a narrow niche.

For anyone selecting a GPU for server or professional rendering workloads today, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is the clear choice. It offers 13.3x more memory bandwidth, 101x more FP32 compute, and a full modern feature set including DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. The K4000's launch MSRP was 1,269 USD, but that price point reflects a different era of hardware. The benchmark data, sparse as it is, supports the conclusion that these cards are not competitors — the RTX PRO 6000 operates in a completely different performance stratum.