Quadro FX 4800 vs Quadro P6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P6000 and Quadro FX 4800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P6000 outperforms FX 4800 by a whopping 1460% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 110 | 835 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.27 | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 10.98 | 1.17 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,999 | $1,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Quadro P6000 has 7017% better value for money than FX 4800.
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 | 3840 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1645 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 394.8 | 38.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.63 TFLOPS | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 24 |
| TMUs | 240 | 64 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2" (5.1 cm) | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 384 Bit | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 432 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync II | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| ECC (Error Correcting Code) | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.79 | 2.55 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 11 November 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 1536 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
Quadro P6000 has a 1460.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 243.8% more advanced lithography process.
FX 4800, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
