Quadro RTX 6000 vs Quadro FX 4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4000 and Quadro RTX 6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 4000
2004
256 MB GDDR3, 142 Watt
0.26

RTX 6000 outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 18573% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking135767
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.66
Power efficiency0.1312.88
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV40TU102
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date1 April 2004 (20 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,199 $6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 4000 and RTX 6000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 coresno data4608
Core clock speed375 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1770 MHz
Number of transistors222 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate4.500509.8
Floating-point processing powerno data16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs896
TMUs12288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x Molex1x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB24 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth32 GB/s672.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 4000 0.26
RTX 6000 48.55
+18573%

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.

FX 4000 101
RTX 6000 18660
+18375%

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 0.26 48.55
Recency 1 April 2004 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 260 Watt

FX 4000 has 83.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 18573.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000
Quadro FX 4000
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000
Quadro RTX 6000

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 133 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.