Quadro RTX 6000 vs Quadro 4000M

Place in the ranking	742	67
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.37	5.51
Power efficiency	2.29	12.88
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF104	TU102
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	$6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 6000 has 1389% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	336	4608
Core clock speed	475 MHz	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.60	509.8
Floating-point processing power	0.6384 TFLOPS	16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	96
TMUs	56	288
Tensor Cores	no data	576
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	72

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	24 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	672.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro 4000M 3.32

RTX 6000 48.66
+1366%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro 4000M 1278

RTX 6000 18707
+1364%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro 4000M 5212

RTX 6000 148542
+2750%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

−1308%

1000−1050
+1308%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.32

−0.4%

6.30
+0.4%

Quadro 4000M and RTX 6000 have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Elden Ring	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −1317%	85−90 +1317%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
Valorant	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Dota 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Elden Ring	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −1344%	260−270 +1344%
Fortnite	18−20 −1321%	270−280 +1321%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
Grand Theft Auto V	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −1317%	85−90 +1317%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 −1233%	400−450 +1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1317%	170−180 +1317%
Valorant	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
World of Tanks	55−60 −1366%	850−900 +1366%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1355%	160−170 +1355%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Dota 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −1344%	260−270 +1344%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 −1233%	400−450 +1233%
Valorant	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Elden Ring	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −1204%	300−310 +1204%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
World of Tanks	21−24 −1204%	300−310 +1204%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −1275%	55−60 +1275%
Valorant	10−11 −1300%	140−150 +1300%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −1338%	230−240 +1338%
Elden Ring	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −1338%	230−240 +1338%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −1338%	230−240 +1338%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Dota 2	16−18 −1338%	230−240 +1338%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Fortnite	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Valorant	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%

This is how Quadro 4000M and RTX 6000 compete in popular games:

RTX 6000 is 1308% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.32	48.66
Recency	22 February 2011	13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	24 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	260 Watt

Quadro 4000M has 160% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 1365.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro RTX 6000 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.