Quadro RTX 8000 vs Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 155 | 61 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.97 |
| Power efficiency | 21.36 | 13.29 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | TU102 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2560 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 1110 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 249.6 | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.987 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 160 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | 320 | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 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 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 7.5 |
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 | 109
−46.8%
| 160−170
+46.8%
|
| 1440p | 61
−39.3%
| 85−90
+39.3%
|
| 4K | 49
−42.9%
| 70−75
+42.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 62.49 |
| 1440p | no data | 117.64 |
| 4K | no data | 142.84 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−44.9%
|
100−105
+44.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−38.9%
|
100−105
+38.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 110−120
−45.3%
|
170−180
+45.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 94
−38.3%
|
130−140
+38.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−44.9%
|
100−105
+44.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−38.9%
|
100−105
+38.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
−43.8%
|
230−240
+43.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 103
−45.6%
|
150−160
+45.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
−44.9%
|
100−105
+44.9%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−47.1%
|
200−210
+47.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
−45.8%
|
140−150
+45.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−44.9%
|
100−105
+44.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−38.9%
|
100−105
+38.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
−36.4%
|
60−65
+36.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 110−120
−45.3%
|
170−180
+45.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
−46.1%
|
130−140
+46.1%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
−41%
|
220−230
+41%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
−43.8%
|
230−240
+43.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
−45.5%
|
160−170
+45.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
−47.1%
|
75−80
+47.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
−43.6%
|
270−280
+43.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
−44.9%
|
100−105
+44.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
−45.3%
|
170−180
+45.3%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−47.1%
|
200−210
+47.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
−43.9%
|
400−450
+43.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 81
−35.8%
|
110−120
+35.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−44.9%
|
100−105
+44.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−38.9%
|
100−105
+38.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 127
−41.7%
|
180−190
+41.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
−42.9%
|
130−140
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
−43.8%
|
230−240
+43.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
−43.6%
|
270−280
+43.6%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−47.1%
|
200−210
+47.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85−90
+39.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
−43.9%
|
95−100
+43.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−45.2%
|
90−95
+45.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−42.9%
|
250−260
+42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
−37.6%
|
300−310
+37.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
−37%
|
100−105
+37%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
−38.9%
|
150−160
+38.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
−45.8%
|
140−150
+45.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 77
−42.9%
|
110−120
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−42.9%
|
80−85
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−38.6%
|
140−150
+38.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−47.1%
|
50−55
+47.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
−45.2%
|
45−50
+45.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−38.9%
|
150−160
+38.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−41%
|
55−60
+41%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−47.1%
|
50−55
+47.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 106
−41.5%
|
150−160
+41.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−45.8%
|
70−75
+45.8%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−41.3%
|
65−70
+41.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−45.5%
|
80−85
+45.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−44.2%
|
75−80
+44.2%
|
This is how RTX 4000 Mobile and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 47% faster in 1080p
- RTX 8000 is 39% faster in 1440p
- RTX 8000 is 43% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.13 | 50.21 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 48 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 260 Watt |
RTX 4000 Mobile has an age advantage of 9 months, and 136.4% lower power consumption.
RTX 8000, on the other hand, has a 47.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
