RTX-A4000-16GB vs RTX-PRO-6000-WK-96GB
RTX-A4000-16GB is the cheaper of the two: $0.1/hr at TensorDock, against $1.87/hr for RTX-PRO-6000-WK-96GB at Lium — 18.7× the price.
Cheapest on each
Aligned facts
Same sheet, same order, both cards — including the gaps.
| Attribute | RTX-A4000-16GB | RTX-PRO-6000-WK-96GB |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM | 16 GB | 96 GB▲ |
| Bandwidth | ○ no answer | ○ no answer |
| FP16 | ○ no answer | ○ no answer |
| FP8 | ○ no answer | ○ no answer |
| TDP | 140 W | ○ no answer |
| NVLink | ○ no answer | ○ no answer |
| Architecture | ○ no answer | ○ no answer |
| Released | ○ no answer | ○ no answer |
A blank is not a zero. Where one card states a figure and the other states none, neither wins the row — the second number is unknown, and ranking an unknown as nothing is how a comparison starts to lie.
Every seller, both cards
One row per seller, cheapest tier, on-demand list prices only. Sellers of both cards lead, cheapest combined rate first.
| Seller | RTX-A4000-16GB | RTX-PRO-6000-WK-96GB |
|---|---|---|
| Lium | $0.122026-10-27JSON | $1.872026-10-27JSON |
| RunPod | $0.252026-10-27 | $2.592026-10-27 |
| TensorDock | $0.102026-10-26 | ○ no answer |
| Hyperstack | $0.152026-10-26 | ○ no answer |
| Runcrate | $1.042026-10-26 | ○ no answer |
What this page will not tell you
On-demand list rates only · spot and committed terms priced separately and not mixed in here · no performance-per-dollar figure appears on this page, because it needs a throughput benchmark we do not hold and dividing a price by a vendor’s own TFLOPS claim produces a number that looks authoritative and means nothing