Quadro M6000 vs RTX A4000H
Quadro M6000
Popular choices:
RTX A4000H
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000
Performance Per Dollar RTX A4000H
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RTX A4000H is significantly newer (2021 vs 2015). The RTX A4000H likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro M6000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RTX A4000H is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M6000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M6000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $500 versus $927 for the RTX A4000H, it costs 46% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 84.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+84.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($500) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($927) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro M6000 and RTX A4000H
Quadro M6000
The Quadro M6000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 21 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 988 MHz to 1114 MHz. It has 3072 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,769 points. Launch price was $4,199.99.
RTX A4000H
The RTX A4000H is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 12 2021. It features the Ampere architecture. The core clock ranges from 735 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 6144 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 140W. Manufactured using 8 nm process technology. It features 48 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 11,815 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro M6000 scores 11,769 and the RTX A4000H reaches 11,815 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M6000 is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the RTX A4000H uses Ampere, both on 28 nm vs 8 nm. Shader units: 3,072 (Quadro M6000) vs 6,144 (RTX A4000H). Raw compute: 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000) vs 19.17 TFLOPS (RTX A4000H). Boost clocks: 1114 MHz vs 1560 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,769 | 11,815 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Ampere |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Shading Units | 3072 | 6144+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 6.844 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS+180% |
| Boost Clock | 1114 MHz | 1560 MHz+40% |
| ROPs | 96 | 96 |
| TMUs | 192 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | 6 MB+445% |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 4 MB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro M6000 comes with 12 GB of VRAM, while the RTX A4000H has 8 GB. The Quadro M6000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 317 GB/s (Quadro M6000) vs 448 GB/s (RTX A4000H) — a 41.3% advantage for the RTX A4000H. Bus width: 384-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 3 MB (Quadro M6000) vs 4 MB (RTX A4000H) — the RTX A4000H has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 12 GB+50% | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 317 GB/s | 448 GB/s+41% |
| Bus Width | 384-bit+100% | 192-bit |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 4 MB+33% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12/1 (Quadro M6000) vs 12.2 (RTX A4000H). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12/1 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000) vs None (RTX A4000H). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP6 vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000) vs None (RTX A4000H).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP6 | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC | None |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro M6000 draws 250W versus the RTX A4000H's 140W — a 56.4% difference. The RTX A4000H is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Quadro M6000) vs 500W (RTX A4000H). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 241mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 140W-44% |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 241mm |
| Height | 112mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 1-50% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 75°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 47.1 | 84.4+79% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro M6000 launched at $4999 MSRP and currently averages $500, while the RTX A4000H launched at $1000 and now averages $927. The Quadro M6000 costs 46.1% less ($427 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.5 (Quadro M6000) vs 12.7 (RTX A4000H) — the Quadro M6000 offers 85% better value. The RTX A4000H is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2015).
| Feature | Quadro M6000 | RTX A4000H |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4999 | $1000-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500-46% | $927 |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.5+85% | 12.7 |
| Codename | GM200 | GA104 |
| Release | March 21 2015 | April 12 2021 |
| Ranking | #228 | #226 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro M6000 and RTX A4000H
