Quadro RTX 6000 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 — Specs & Performance Compared

Verdict: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is ahead of the Quadro RTX 6000 on all 4 shared benchmarks on file, by 2% to 33%, including 2% in 3DMark Time Spy (13,997 vs 13,758). On llama2:7b, the Quadro RTX 6000 generates 102.8 tokens/s (per llama.cpp GitHub (CUDA performance scoreboard, Discussion #15013)) against 78.7 for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (per llama.cpp GitHub Discussions), best community run on file for each.

Side-by-side GPU comparison of the Quadro RTX 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070. Released 2018 (Quadro RTX 6000), 2020 (NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070). Specs, synthetic benchmarks, AI inference tok/s, and Amazon availability below; each column header links to that part's benchmark page.

NVIDIA · Turing

Quadro RTX 6000

24 GB VRAM2018

Full Quadro RTX 6000 benchmarks →

NVIDIA · Ampere

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070

8 GB VRAM220W TDP$499 MSRP2020

Full NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 benchmarks →

*Price sourced from Amazon.com. Price and availability subject to change.

Where to buy

A listing for each part; the current price and stock are on the retailer's page.

Specs side-by-side

Spec	Quadro RTX 6000	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
vram gb	24	8
vram type	—	GDDR6
tdp w	—	220
cuda cores	—	5888

Synthetic benchmarks

Each row says whether a higher or a lower number is better (ranks and times are lower-is-better). Scores come from KitGuru, DigiStatement, Guru3D, 3DMark, VideoCardz, TopCPU and PassMark; each row links its sources, and where they differ the cell shows their median. Empty cells mean we don't yet have that benchmark on file for the SKU.

Benchmark	Quadro RTX 6000	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
3DMark Fire Strike Extreme (higher is better) Source: KitGuru, DigiStatement	—	17,115 points
3DMark Fire Strike Ultra (higher is better) Source: Guru3D, 3DMark	8,190 points	8,749 points
3DMark Fire Strike Ultra Graphics (higher is better) Source: 3DMark	8,245 points	—
3DMark Port Royal (higher is better) Source: KitGuru, DigiStatement, 3DMark, VideoCardz	—	8,324 points
3DMark Speed Way (higher is better) Source: 3DMark, TopCPU	—	3,421 points
3DMark Steel Nomad (higher is better) Source: 3DMark	—	3,181 points
3DMark Steel Nomad (DX12) graphics score (higher is better) Source: 3DMark	—	3,182 points
3DMark Steel Nomad Graphics (higher is better) Source: 3DMark	—	3,180 points
3DMark Time Spy (higher is better) Source: KitGuru, TopCPU, DigiStatement, 3DMark, VideoCardz	13,758 points	13,997 points
3DMark Time Spy Extreme (higher is better) Source: KitGuru, DigiStatement	—	6,907 points
PassMark G2D Mark (higher is better) Source: PassMark	754 pts	1,005 pts
PassMark G3D Mark (higher is better) Source: PassMark	17,828 pts	22,123 pts

AI inference (tokens/sec)

Top community-reported tokens-per-second results for popular LLMs whose weights fit the card's memory, each linked to its source. See the per-SKU benchmark page for the full set including quantization and prompt length.

Quadro RTX 6000

llama3.2:1b-instruct: 253.0 tok/s (LocalScore (Mozilla llamafile benchmark))
llama2:7b: 102.8 tok/s (llama.cpp GitHub (CUDA performance scoreboard, Discussion #15013))
llama2:7b: 102.8 tok/s (llama.cpp GitHub (CUDA performance scoreboard))

All Quadro RTX 6000 AI benchmarks →

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070

llama2:7b: 78.7 tok/s (llama.cpp GitHub Discussions)
llama2:7b: 78.7 tok/s (llama.cpp GitHub Discussion #10879)
llama3.1:8b: 73.7 tok/s (Patrick Hughes (bmdpat.com))

All NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 AI benchmarks →

Quick answers

Which is faster, the Quadro RTX 6000 or the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070?

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 is ahead of the Quadro RTX 6000 on all 4 shared benchmarks on file, by 2% to 33%, including 2% in 3DMark Time Spy (13,997 vs 13,758).

Which is better for running local LLMs?

On llama2:7b, the Quadro RTX 6000 generates 102.8 tokens/s (per llama.cpp GitHub (CUDA performance scoreboard, Discussion #15013)) against 78.7 for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 (per llama.cpp GitHub Discussions), best community run on file for each.