Quadro P5000 vs GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB with Quadro P5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB outperforms P5000 by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 41 | 172 |
| Place by popularity | 85 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 63.82 | 7.20 |
| Power efficiency | 24.57 | 12.52 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | AD106 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 May 2023 (1 year ago) | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 786% better value for money than Quadro P5000.
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 | 4352 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 2310 MHz | 1607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2535 MHz | 1733 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 22,900 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 344.8 | 277.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 22.06 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 136 | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | 136 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 34 | no data |
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 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 240 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 1127 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 192 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Display Port | no data | 1.4 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 8.9 | 6.1 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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 | 173
+86%
| 93
−86%
|
| 1440p | 92
+84%
| 50−55
−84%
|
| 4K | 55
+34.1%
| 41
−34.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.88
+832%
| 26.87
−832%
|
| 1440p | 5.42
+821%
| 49.98
−821%
|
| 4K | 9.07
+572%
| 60.95
−572%
|
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 832% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 821% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 572% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 259
+194%
|
85−90
−194%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+111%
|
65−70
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 176
+155%
|
65−70
−155%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 198
+125%
|
85−90
−125%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+40.7%
|
110−120
−40.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+111%
|
65−70
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 137
+98.6%
|
65−70
−98.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 191
+92.9%
|
95−100
−92.9%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+73.6%
|
140−150
−73.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+77.3%
|
110−120
−77.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+80.9%
|
85−90
−80.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+45.1%
|
120−130
−45.1%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+54.9%
|
190−200
−54.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 117
+33%
|
85−90
−33%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+40.7%
|
110−120
−40.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+111%
|
65−70
−111%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1.1%
|
270−280
−1.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 115
+66.7%
|
65−70
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 182
+83.8%
|
95−100
−83.8%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+73.6%
|
140−150
−73.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+77.3%
|
110−120
−77.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+80.9%
|
85−90
−80.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 163
+52.3%
|
100−110
−52.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130
+85.7%
|
70−75
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+45.1%
|
120−130
−45.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 270
+176%
|
98
−176%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+54.9%
|
190−200
−54.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+40.7%
|
110−120
−40.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+111%
|
65−70
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 103
+49.3%
|
65−70
−49.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 171
+72.7%
|
95−100
−72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+77.3%
|
110−120
−77.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+45.1%
|
120−130
−45.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+149%
|
53
−149%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+54.9%
|
190−200
−54.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 240−250
+73.6%
|
140−150
−73.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+76.9%
|
24−27
−76.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+85.8%
|
210−220
−85.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+71.2%
|
55−60
−71.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 79
+83.7%
|
40−45
−83.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+47.4%
|
230−240
−47.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+62.2%
|
80−85
−62.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 62
+87.9%
|
30−35
−87.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 127
+76.4%
|
70−75
−76.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+108%
|
80−85
−108%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 96
+77.8%
|
50−55
−77.8%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+94.8%
|
75−80
−94.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+65.6%
|
60−65
−65.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+119%
|
36
−119%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+68.5%
|
180−190
−68.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+93.8%
|
45−50
−93.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+75.7%
|
35−40
−75.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+125%
|
55−60
−125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+167%
|
35−40
−167%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+119%
|
35−40
−119%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB and Quadro P5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 86% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 84% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 34% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 194% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is ahead in 60 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 58.41 | 32.47 |
| Recency | 18 May 2023 | 1 October 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 100 Watt |
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has a 79.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro P5000, on the other hand, has 65% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is a desktop card while Quadro P5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
