OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£330VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:160 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):130 W

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

40%

6.3

Technical score

25%

6.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 75% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 62%
6.3

Technical score

Technical score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

44%

5.3

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

7.0

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.3

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 66%
6.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

6.3

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 79%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
  • nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
nvidia-quadro-rtx-4000
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

Based on 0 · 12

Reviewers praise its professional and gaming performance and low power draw, but complain it runs hot.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

Technical score
Technical score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

44%

5.3

Performance

24%

5.1

Memory

12%

7.0

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

9.3

Connectivity

6.3
Reviews score
6.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
11,154 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 11,154 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 65.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
14,108 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 14,108 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 67.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
24,054 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 24,054 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 55.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
12,161 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 12,161 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 51.6% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
26.7 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 26.7 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 57% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
160 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 160 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
360 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 360 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 61.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
18,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 18,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 51.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
1.62 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 1.62 Gbps, which is slower than on 95.4% of graphics cards and equal to 1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
130 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 130 W, which is lower than that of 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
160 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 160 W under peak load, which is lower than 71.4% of graphics cards and equal to 3.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
160 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 160 W, which is lower than that of 71.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
160 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
?
Length
241 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 241 mm long, which is shorter than 74.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,200 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,200 g, which is heavier than 59.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 1.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 12x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    48 MB vs 4 MB
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 8 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (48 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    48 vs 40
  • 8 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (48 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    48 vs 40
  • 48 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (192 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    192 vs 144
  • 9.23x higher BF16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher BF16 performance than the average graphics card (327.6 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has BF16 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS.
    327.6 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS
  • 11.11x higher FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP16 performance than the average graphics card (327.6 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    327.6 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 54.2% higher ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a higher ray tracing score than the average graphics card (14,108 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    14,108 points vs 9,148 points
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    48 MB vs 24 MB
  • 12x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    48 MB vs 4 MB
  • 8 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (8 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    8 vs 0
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 39.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (130 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    130 W vs 215 W
  • 27.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (160 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    160 W vs 220 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 41.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    241 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 38.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,545 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,545 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 47.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,005 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,005 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 12.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

    6.3

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.3 vs 7.2
  • 12.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

    6.3

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    8 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.3 vs 7.2
  • 38.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,545 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,545 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 47.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,005 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,005 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 24.5% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (11,154 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    11,154 points vs 14,779 points
  • 13.7% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (139.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    139.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 32 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (160 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    160 bit vs 192 bit
  • 19.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (360 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    360 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 5.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 92.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (1.6 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    1.62 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
16/07/2025
Hands-on benchmark · game tests and cooling notes
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is a strong card with good gaming performance, let down only by its weak cooler.
4.0
Borderline Obsolete
≈ estimated
04/05/2025
Hands-on test · gaming benchmarks and power draw
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 performs well at low power, but without macOS support it isn't recommended for most Mac Pro owners.
9.0
thecodblackopskid
≈ estimated
03/05/2025
Benchmark · game tests in a used prebuilt PC
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 in this used prebuilt PC games well for the price, and the GPU alone could be resold for most of its cost.
9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
09/03/2025
Hands-on benchmark · game tests and thermal checks
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is a very slim card with good performance, recommended if you can find it at a fair price.
9.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
13/03/2023
Hands-on review · open-world game benchmarks at 1080p
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 gives good frame rates in open-world games, though the fan gets loud under load.
6.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
24/12/2022
Gaming benchmark test · several games and settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is fast in games, but expensive for its performance, so a newer 30-series card is suggested instead.
8.0
DanielC
≈ estimated
03/06/2022
Hands-on test · God of War at low power settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 performs well at low power in God of War, but runs hot and its upscaling gains are small.
6.0
Caveman Tech
≈ estimated
23/11/2021
Hands-on review · mining hashrate and profitability tests
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 offers modest mining returns, so buy it only at a low price, not at scalped or retail prices.
4.0
Byte My Bits
≈ estimated
19/04/2020
Hands-on test · Plex transcoding against the P2000
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 isn't worth the extra cost for Plex transcoding; the P2000 is the better value.
8.0
GreenPCGamers.com
≈ estimated
30/03/2020
Gaming test · five popular titles at 1080p high settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 performs well against other Quadro cards, but runs too hot while gaming.
9.0
VFX Pipeline
≈ estimated
07/09/2019
Hands-on test · Unreal Engine performance on a laptop
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 runs a heavy Unreal Engine scene smoothly and is worth it for 3D and visual work.
Hands-on video, no verdict

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

  • Ray tracing and 192 Tensor cores speed up light and AI work.
  • ECC memory guards the data against memory errors.
  • 48 MB of L2 cache keeps data close to the chip.
  • One slot width fits compact workstations.
  • A 130 W power draw keeps the power needs moderate.
  • SR-IOV and vGPU support let one card be shared across virtual machines.

What customers don't like about NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000

  • No HDMI output, so monitors need a DisplayPort connection.
  • Overclocking is not supported.
  • One fan means heavy, long jobs need good case airflow.
  • 8 GB of memory may be tight for very large 3D scenes.
  • The 1.62 Gbps DisplayPort link rate is slow for high-refresh monitors.

Verdict

Work that uses AI or realistic light is where the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 stands out, thanks to its 192 Tensor cores and ray tracing. Its 8 GB of ECC memory corrects errors in the data, which matters for long renders and scientific work. It has 48 MB of L2 cache and 26.7 TFLOPS of FP32 power for heavy compute jobs. The card is one slot wide and draws 130 W, so it fits a compact workstation with a 450 W power supply. The trade-off is ports. There is no HDMI output, so your screen needs a DisplayPort connection. Overclocking is not supported, which helps a card that must run steady for hours. It suits a professional who runs 3D rendering, AI tools or CAD and does not need a gaming focus.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found