NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
- Videocard is newer: launch date 9 month(s) later
- Around 10% higher core clock speed: 1110 MHz vs 1005 MHz
- Around 30% higher boost clock speed: 1560 MHz vs 1200 MHz
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 110 Watt vs 250 Watt
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3715 vs 3652
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3715 vs 3652
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3290
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3290
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 13 August 2018 |
Core clock speed | 1110 MHz vs 1005 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz vs 1200 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 110 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 vs 3652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 vs 3652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3290 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3290 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
- 8x more memory clock speed: 14000 MHz vs 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective)
- Around 58% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 869 vs 551
- Around 53% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 19370 vs 12627
- Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 21578 vs 19529
- Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 21578 vs 19529
Specifications (specs) | |
Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz vs 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective) |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 vs 551 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 vs 12627 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 vs 19529 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 vs 19529 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |
---|---|---|
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 7438 | 0 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 551 | 869 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 12627 | 19370 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 19529 | 21578 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 19529 | 21578 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3715 | 3652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3715 | 3652 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 | 3290 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 | 3290 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 137262 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Turing | Turing |
Code name | TU104 | TU102 |
Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 13 August 2018 |
Place in performance rating | 171 | 103 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 1200 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1110 MHz | 1005 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 12 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 249.6 GFLOPS (1:32) | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 15.97 TFLOPS (2:1) | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 7.987 TFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 2560 | |
Pixel fill rate | 99.84 GPixel/s | |
Texture fill rate | 249.6 GTexel/s | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 110 Watt | 250 Watt |
Transistor count | 13600 million | 18,600 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |
Width | IGP | |
Length | 267 mm | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 6.5 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 448 GB/s | |
Memory bus width | 256 bit | |
Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz (14000 MHz effective) | 14000 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR6 |