AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 dominates the direct comparison in the two recorded cross-benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 scores 150,004 against the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s 41,772, a 72.2% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a decisive gap that reflects the GV100’s far larger compute footprint. The same pattern appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GV100 posts 139,526 versus 39,601, a 71.6% margin. The AMD card trails in both API workloads, and the data shows no test where the Radeon Pro 5500 XT comes out ahead.

However, the aggregate benchmark picture is more nuanced. The AMD card’s average benchmark score sits at 45,384, while the GV100’s average is 35,520. That discrepancy stems from the GV100’s inclusion of several Passmark DirectX tests where it scores extremely low: 140 in DirectX 10, 168 in DirectX 11, 84 in DirectX 12, and 207 in DirectX 9. These figures drag down its average despite its strong Geekbench results. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT has no Passmark entries in the database, so its average relies entirely on Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan scores. The Metal score of 54,779 is particularly notable, as it exceeds the GV100’s average across all its tests.

When positioned against their nearest rivals, both cards occupy similar percentile territory. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the GV100 is at the 80th. The Radeon’s closest competitor is the Intel Arc A730M, which averages 45,592, a 0.5% difference. The NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation sits 1.3% higher at 45,972, and the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is 1.3% lower at 44,795. The GV100’s rivals include the GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile at 35,435 (0.2% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro Duo at 35,860 (0.9% higher), and the NVIDIA T1000 at 36,289 (2.1% higher). These deltas are small, indicating that both cards are competitive within their respective performance tiers, even though the head-to-head comparison is lopsided.

The verdict from the head-to-head data is clear: for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the GV100 is the superior card by a wide margin. The Radeon’s advantage in Metal is real but untested against the GV100, as no Metal benchmark exists for the NVIDIA card in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 uses the GV100 chip on Volta architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 12 nm. The Radeon packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm². The GV100 crams 21,100 million transistors into an 815 mm² die, which works out to 25.9 million per mm². The AMD chip is denser, but the NVIDIA chip is vastly larger in absolute transistor count and physical size.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s. That is nearly four times the bandwidth, and the bus width is 32 times larger. The memory clock rates differ as well: the Radeon runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), while the GV100 runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). The GV100’s lower clock is irrelevant given its massive bus width.

Compute resources are also unevenly distributed. The Radeon has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also includes 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD card. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores. The pixel rate for the GV100 is 208.3 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 520.6 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 5.398 TFLOPS. FP16 is 33.32 TFLOPS versus 10.80 TFLOPS, with both cards using a 2:1 ratio.

Power and physical design differ as well. The Radeon is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and a 125 W TDP, while the GV100 is a dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin connector and drawing 250 W. The suggested PSU rating is 300 W for the Radeon and 600 W for the GV100. The Radeon has no display outputs, whereas the GV100 provides four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The GV100 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Radeon’s dimensions are not recorded. The Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GV100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The GV100 wins decisively in compute-heavy, high-bandwidth workloads. Its OpenCL score of 150,004 and Vulkan score of 139,526 demonstrate overwhelming superiority in general-purpose GPU compute and cross-platform graphics APIs. The 32 GB HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth makes it suitable for large datasets, scientific simulation, and workloads that require massive memory pools. The 640 tensor cores add a capability the Radeon simply does not have, making the GV100 the choice for any application that leverages tensor operations.

The Radeon Pro 5500 XT wins in one specific area: Metal performance. Its Geekbench Metal score of 54,779 is its highest recorded benchmark, and it is the only test where the card posts a score above its own OpenCL and Vulkan results. This suggests that Apple’s Metal API is well optimized for the RDNA architecture. The card’s 7 nm process and higher transistor density (40.5M per mm²) also imply better power efficiency per unit of silicon, though the database does not provide efficiency ratios. Its 125 W TDP and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for integrated systems where space and power are constrained. The absence of display outputs further indicates it is meant for compute tasks within a host system, not as a standalone graphics card.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the GV100 is the only rational choice. For those working within the Metal ecosystem, particularly on Apple platforms, the Radeon Pro 5500 XT offers a strong result that the GV100 cannot match, since no Metal benchmark is recorded for the NVIDIA card.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT | NVIDIA Quadro GV100 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Volta |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1187 MHz | 1132 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1757 MHz | 1627 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 868.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 96 | 320 |

| ROPs | 32 | 128 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 640 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.22 GPixel/s | 208.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 168.7 GTexel/s | 520.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.398 TFLOPS | 16.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 125 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2020-08-03 | 2018-03-26 |

The GV100 also has a recorded length of 267 mm and height of 111 mm, while the Radeon’s dimensions are not listed. The NVIDIA card lists a predecessor (Quadro Pascal) and successor (Quadro Turing), while the AMD card lists neither. The launch MSRP for the GV100 is 8,999 USD, stated once here as recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS, which is over three times the AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT’s 5.398 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The GV100 provides 868.4 GB/s over a 4096-bit HBM2 bus, while the Radeon Pro 5500 XT provides 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: Does the AMD card support ray tracing?

A: No. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores. The GV100 does include 640 tensor cores, which the Radeon lacks.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500 XT averages 45,384, while the GV100 averages 35,520. The GV100’s average is pulled down by low Passmark DirectX scores (84 to 207), despite its high Geekbench results.

Q: Which card is better for OpenCL workloads?

A: The GV100 scores 150,004 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 72.2% advantage over the Radeon’s 41,772.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500 XT sits at the 84th percentile, while the GV100 sits at the 80th percentile.

The Verdict

The data directs different users to different cards. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the clear winner for anyone whose work depends on OpenCL or Vulkan compute. Its 150,004 and 139,526 scores in those respective tests are overwhelming, and its 32 GB memory capacity, 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 640 tensor cores make it a specialized compute instrument. The GV100 is also the only option with display outputs, providing four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. Its 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU requirement indicate a workstation component, not an integrated solution.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is the better choice for Metal-based environments. Its 54,779 Geekbench Metal score is its strongest result, and its 7 nm process node with 40.5M transistors per mm² suggests a more modern, dense design. The 125 W TDP and absence of power connectors make it suitable for integrated systems. Its lack of display outputs and smaller memory pool (8 GB) limit its versatility, but for Apple-centric compute pipelines, it outperforms the GV100 in the recorded Metal benchmark.

The overall percentile rankings are close, with the Radeon at 84 and the GV100 at 80. That parity is deceptive given the head-to-head results. The GV100 wins both direct comparisons by over 70%. The Radeon’s higher percentile is driven by its lack of low-scoring Passmark entries, not by superior performance. For users who need maximum compute throughput, the GV100 is the definitive choice. For users whose workflow is built around Metal, the Radeon Pro 5500 XT offers a compelling, lower-power alternative. The database records no scenario where the Radeon beats the GV100 in a shared benchmark, so the verdict rests on ecosystem fit rather than raw capability.