NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Rendering Related Benchmarks
Next, we wanted to get a sense of the rendering performance of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 configuration.
Arion v2.5
Arion Benchmark is a standalone render benchmark based on the commercially available Arion render software from RandomControl. The benchmark is GPU-accelerated using NVIDIA CUDA. However, it is unique in that it can run on both NVIDIA GPUs and CPUs.
Download the Arion Benchmark from here. First-time users will have to register to download the benchmark.
Like our first set of benchmarks, there is a slight difference between the ZOTAC RTX 2070 Blower.
MAXON Cinema4D 3D
ProRender is an OpenCL based GPU renderer which is available in MAXON’s Cinema4D 3D animation software. A fully functional 42-day trial version is available for downloaded from the MAXON website here. Note: Even after expiration, the trial can still be used to measure render times.
With a two-second difference, the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 falls a bit behind the ZOTAC RTX 2070 Blower in time to complete this benchmark.
OctaneRender 4
OctaneRender from Otoy is an unbiased GPU renderer using the CUDA API. The latest release, OctaneRender 4, introduces support for out of core geometry. Octane is available as a standalone rendering application, and a demo version is available for downloaded from the OTOY website here.
OctaneRender generates a very heavy load on GPUs. Here the Quadro RTX 4000 drops from second to last on our chart.
Redshift v2.6.32
Redshift is a GPU-accelerated renderer with production-quality. A Demo version of this benchmark can be found here.
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 finishes 36 seconds faster than the ZOTAC RTX 2070 Blower.
Next, we will have 3DMark results before moving onto power consumption, thermals, and our final thoughts.
The Quadro RTX 4000 has served me well at work in an external Thunderbolt GPU chassis as a portable production GPU. It is an interesting use case as the raw GPU performance was not as critical as getting several check boxes marked on the feature set which precluded many of the lower end Quadros and made anything higher end pure overkill.
One of the requisite features was support for the Quadro Sync II board so that it can be gen-locked with various video production equipment. Since the Quadro RTX 4000 is a single slot board, the Quadro Sync II card fit in with the external GPU chassis. Note that the gen lock board can mount into a PCIe slot, all communication with the GPU card is done via ribbon cables. In a small tower system, I’ve rigged up the same genlock board inside a front panel bay to save on slot spacing.
One of the more interesting things I’ve recently tested has been with nVidia voice where this graphics card get pulled in to do some audio processing in recent months.
The one thing on my wish list for any future nVidia A4000 replacement card would be include Thunderbolt 4 ports on the GPU itself instead of Virtual-Link. It’d be far more useful and there are a handful of video production boxes with Thunderbolt 3 interfaces that could hypothetically communicate directly with the A4000’s hardware video encoders, reducing latency for real time encoding by a few critical hairs. Similarly, an HDMI 2.1 port would be valuable for the video production area that I’ve been involved in lately as a DisplayPort to HDMI adapter would not be necessary for display. Though for a multidisplay system where timing is critical, having all the ports leveraging the same adapters does equalize time vs. one native HDMI port and multiple DP ports with active adapters.
I have installed the NVIDIA RTX 4000 on my Intel s2600stbr motherboard with 256GB ram and two 10 core intel Xeon silver 4210 CPUs with windows 10 pro for workstations, and got the message after compatibility check that due to programs running in the background or OS incompatible, can anyone help with this.
I have an RTX 4000 in my Dell Precision T7610 with two 10 core Xeons and 128gb RAM. Very strangely the machine totally refused to boot up with the RTX card in the PCI-E 16x slot that in intended for the GPU card, so I removed it and put it in the lower PCI-E 16x slot and it’s fine. Bit weird but there we go.
It runs hot. Even with the case fans running fairly energetically it was in the 80’s on full load. I’ve put a slot-fan both above and below the card forcing more air to blow all over it and it’s shaved about 10 degrees off, much better. But now I’m using three slots for a single slot card, which defeats the object somewhat!
Lovely card though.