AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 and NVIDIA Quadro GP100 are both end-of-life professional accelerators that target compute-heavy workloads, but the data clearly separates them. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, the MI60 decisively outperforms the GP100, and its broader specification sheet reinforces that lead. The MI60 wins the only direct comparison with a 5.8% margin in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 92,488 against the GP100’s 87,445. While both cards sit at the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, the MI60’s average benchmark score of 92,466 is substantially higher than the GP100’s 87,445, making it the stronger choice for raw compute performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 posts a score of 92,488 against the NVIDIA Quadro GP100’s 87,445. This represents a 5.8% victory for the MI60, a meaningful gap in professional workloads where every percentage point of compute performance translates to reduced render times or faster simulation cycles. The MI60 also holds an advantage in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 92,444, though the GP100 has no corresponding Vulkan score in the data, leaving that comparison incomplete.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the MI60’s 92,466 average benchmark score places it just 0.9% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500’s 91,671, and 1.5% ahead of the RTX A4500 Mobile’s 91,134. Meanwhile, the GP100’s 87,445 average sits 0.4% above the AMD Radeon PRO W7600’s 87,108 and 2.1% above the NVIDIA CMP 40HX’s 85,637. Notably, both cards face stiffer competition from higher-end parts: the MI60 trails the AMD Radeon Pro VII by 4.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M by 5.2%, while the GP100 falls 4.0% behind the RTX A4500 Mobile and 4.6% behind the RTX A4500.

The deltaPct values reveal that the MI60 is competitive with the RTX A4500 series, while the GP100 is several steps behind that tier. The MI60’s 5.8% win over the GP100 in OpenCL is consistent with its overall positioning: it sits closer to modern workstation GPUs, whereas the GP100’s performance is closer to mid-range professional cards like the PRO W7600. In practical terms, the MI60 delivers roughly 6% more OpenCL throughput than the GP100, a difference that would be noticeable in long-running compute jobs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92,488, which is 5.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro GP100’s 87,445.

Q: How does the MI60 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The MI60’s average benchmark score of 92,466 is 0.9% below the NVIDIA RTX A4500 and 1.5% above the RTX A4500 Mobile. It trails the AMD Radeon Pro VII by 4.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M by 5.2%.

Q: Is the Quadro GP100 competitive with modern workstation GPUs?

A: The GP100’s average score of 87,445 places it just 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and 2.1% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, but it is 4.0% behind the RTX A4500 Mobile and 4.6% behind the RTX A4500.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use?

A: The MI60 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 and FP16 throughput?

A: The MI60 delivers 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the GP100 delivers 10.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Q: What is the transistor and die size difference?

A: The MI60 uses 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, while the GP100 uses 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 is built on the Vega 20 chip using the GCN 5.1 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip with the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process, also by TSMC. This process difference is stark: the MI60 packs 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 40.0M per mm², while the GP100 uses 15,300 million transistors across a much larger 610 mm² die, with a density of just 25.1M per mm².

The MI60’s newer process node allows it to achieve higher performance with fewer transistors, which is reflected in its higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. The MI60’s 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units enable 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The GP100 counters with 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, yielding 10.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The GP100’s higher pixel rate of 138.5 GPixel/s versus the MI60’s 115.2 GPixel/s indicates a stronger rasterization capability, but its texture rate of 323.2 GTexel/s falls short of the MI60’s 460.8 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both use HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus, but the MI60 doubles the capacity to 32 GB and achieves 1.02 TB/s bandwidth, compared to the GP100’s 16 GB and 732.2 GB/s. The MI60’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the GP100 runs at 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective). For compute workloads that rely on large datasets, the MI60’s extra capacity and bandwidth provide a clear advantage. Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores, so both rely purely on traditional shader-based compute.

Specification Differences

The MI60 and GP100 differ across nearly every measurable specification. The MI60 has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost clock of 1800 MHz, while the GP100 runs at 1304 MHz base and 1443 MHz boost. The MI60’s higher boost clock contributes to its superior FP32 and FP16 performance. Memory capacity differs significantly: 32 GB on the MI60 versus 16 GB on the GP100, with corresponding bandwidth of 1.02 TB/s versus 732.2 GB/s. The MI60 uses a 7 nm process with 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, while the GP100 uses a 16 nm process with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. Shading units count 4096 on the MI60 versus 3584 on the GP100, and TMUs number 256 versus 224. The GP100 has more ROPs at 96 versus 64, giving it a higher pixel rate of 138.5 GPixel/s versus 115.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the MI60 at 460.8 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s. The MI60 draws 300 W and requires a 700 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, while the GP100 draws 235 W with a 550 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. The MI60 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas the GP100 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the MI60 has one mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GP100 offers one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both cards are dual-slot, 267 mm long, and 111 mm high.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 5.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its higher FP32 (14.75 versus 10.34 TFLOPS) and FP16 (29.49 versus 20.69 TFLOPS) throughput make it the better choice for general-purpose compute, machine learning inference, and scientific simulations. The MI60’s 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth is double the capacity and roughly 39% more bandwidth than the GP100, making it superior for workloads that require large in-memory datasets, such as deep learning training or large-scale data analytics. Its PCIe 4.0 interface also provides faster host-to-device transfer speeds compared to the GP100’s PCIe 3.0.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins in a few specific areas. Its pixel rate of 138.5 GPixel/s exceeds the MI60’s 115.2 GPixel/s, suggesting better performance in rasterization-heavy tasks, though neither card is designed primarily for graphics. The GP100 also draws less power at 235 W versus 300 W, and requires a smaller 550 W PSU versus 700 W, making it easier to integrate into existing systems. Its display outputs are more extensive, with one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors versus the MI60’s single mini-DisplayPort, so the GP100 is more practical for multi-display visualization setups. The GP100’s higher base clock of 1304 MHz versus 1200 MHz also gives it an edge in lightly threaded workloads that rely on clock speed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-focused buyers: the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60. It outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 by 5.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, delivers 43% more FP32 throughput and 43% more FP16 throughput, and doubles the memory capacity with 29% more bandwidth. Its 93rd percentile ranking matches the GP100, but its average benchmark score of 92,466 versus 87,445 shows it is the stronger performer. The MI60’s nearest rivals include the RTX A4500, which it trails by just 0.9%, indicating it remains competitive with newer professional GPUs.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is the better choice only in specific scenarios. If power consumption is a primary concern, the GP100’s 235 W TDP and 550 W PSU requirement are more modest than the MI60’s 300 W and 700 W. For users needing multiple display outputs, the GP100’s one DVI and four DisplayPort connectors are far more flexible than the MI60’s single mini-DisplayPort. Its higher pixel rate of 138.5 GPixel/s also suggests an advantage in graphics-oriented tasks, though this is not reflected in the available compute benchmarks.

For professional compute workloads, the MI60 is the superior accelerator. Its combination of higher raw throughput, double the memory capacity, and faster memory bandwidth makes it better suited for large-scale simulations, AI training, and data processing. The GP100 remains a viable option for those prioritizing lower power draw, multi-display output, or rasterization performance, but in the direct head-to-head, the MI60 is the definitive winner.