RTX A4000H vs Quadro M6000
RTX A4000H
Popular choices:
Quadro M6000
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 RTX A4000H
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M6000
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 | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🏆Elite Architecture (Ampere (2020−2025) / 8nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (8 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 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 | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+84.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($927) | ✅More affordable ($500) |
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 RTX A4000H and Quadro M6000
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The RTX A4000H scores 11,815 and the Quadro M6000 reaches 11,769 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The RTX A4000H is built on Ampere while the Quadro M6000 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 8 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 6,144 (RTX A4000H) vs 3,072 (Quadro M6000). Raw compute: 19.17 TFLOPS (RTX A4000H) vs 6.844 TFLOPS (Quadro M6000). Boost clocks: 1560 MHz vs 1114 MHz.
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 11,815 | 11,769 |
| Architecture | Ampere | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 6144+100% | 3072 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 19.17 TFLOPS+180% | 6.844 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1560 MHz+40% | 1114 MHz |
| ROPs | 96 | 96 |
| TMUs | 192 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | 6 MB+445% | 1.1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+33% | 3 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | NVIDIA Reflex | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RTX A4000H comes with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M6000 has 12 GB. The Quadro M6000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 448 GB/s (RTX A4000H) vs 317 GB/s (Quadro M6000) — a 41.3% advantage for the RTX A4000H. Bus width: 192-bit vs 384-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (RTX A4000H) vs 3 MB (Quadro M6000) — the RTX A4000H has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 8 GB | 12 GB+50% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 448 GB/s+41% | 317 GB/s |
| Bus Width | 192-bit | 384-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+33% | 3 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (RTX A4000H) vs 12/1 (Quadro M6000). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12/1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3+18% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+2% | 4.5 |
| Max Displays | 4 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (RTX A4000H) vs NVENC 4.0 (Quadro M6000). Decoder: None vs PureVideo HD VP6. Supported codecs: None (RTX A4000H) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC (Quadro M6000).
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 4.0 |
| Decoder | None | PureVideo HD VP6 |
| Codecs | None | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC |
Power & Dimensions
The RTX A4000H draws 140W versus the Quadro M6000's 250W — a 56.4% difference. The RTX A4000H is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (RTX A4000H) vs 500W (Quadro M6000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 241mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 140W-44% | 250W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 112mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C-6% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 84.4+79% | 47.1 |
Value Analysis
The RTX A4000H launched at $1000 MSRP and currently averages $927, while the Quadro M6000 launched at $4999 and now averages $500. The Quadro M6000 costs 46.1% less ($427 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 12.7 (RTX A4000H) vs 23.5 (Quadro M6000) — the Quadro M6000 offers 85% better value. The RTX A4000H is the newer GPU (2021 vs 2015).
| Feature | RTX A4000H | Quadro M6000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1000-80% | $4999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $927 | $500-46% |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.7 | 23.5+85% |
| Codename | GA104 | GM200 |
| Release | April 12 2021 | March 21 2015 |
| Ranking | #226 | #228 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RTX A4000H and Quadro M6000
