AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 wins every single head-to-head comparison in the FACT PACK. Out of nine shared tests, NVIDIA takes all nine. The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 records zero wins. That does not mean the AMD card is without merit—its strengths are contextual rather than competitive. The Radeon Pro 5700 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no display outputs, designed for Apple Mac systems. It draws 130 W and requires no power connectors, fitting into a 300 W system power supply recommendation. The Quadro RTX 4000, by contrast, is a single-slot card with 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs, needs a 160 W TDP and a 1x 8-pin power connector, and recommends a 450 W power supply.

The Quadro RTX 4000 is the clear choice for any workload where raw compute, graphics rendering, or API compatibility matters. Its biggest margin comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 78,844 versus the Radeon's 51,289—a 34.9% advantage. In DirectX 11, the gap is even larger in percentage terms: 128 versus 78, a 39.1% lead. For professional applications that lean on OpenCL, the Quadro's 74,540 versus 52,787 represents a 29.2% edge. If you are running DCC tools, CAD, or GPU compute, the data points exclusively to NVIDIA.

The Radeon Pro 5700's only "win" is contextual: it exists in a lower power envelope and requires no external power, making it suitable for systems where a discrete card cannot be installed. But that is a system-integration advantage, not a performance one. The benchmark results show it trailing by 19.7% in GPU compute (4,961 vs. 6,176) and by 23.4% in Passmark G3D (11,583 vs. 15,117). Even in older DirectX 9 workloads, the Quadro leads by 30.2% (205 vs. 143). There is no test in the FACT PACK where the AMD card pulls ahead. If you need performance, the choice is NVIDIA. If you need an integrated solution with no outputs and lower power draw, the Radeon is the only option presented.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 has an average benchmark score of 18,189, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17,789. The Radeon edges ahead by about 2.2% despite losing every head-to-head test.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 5700 win on average if it loses every direct comparison?

A: The average includes a Geekbench Metal score for the Radeon (60,126) that has no corresponding Quadro result in the head-to-head data. That Metal score inflates the Radeon's average. In the nine tests where both cards ran the same workload, the Quadro won every time.

Q: How do the two cards compare in DirectX 12 performance?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 scores 52 in Passmark DirectX 12, versus 48 for the Radeon Pro 5700. That is a 7.7% lead for NVIDIA, the narrowest margin in the head-to-head set.

Q: What about compute workloads like OpenCL?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 leads by 29.2% in Geekbench OpenCL (74,540 vs. 52,787) and by 19.7% in Passmark GPU Compute (6,176 vs. 4,961). NVIDIA is substantially ahead in both compute-oriented tests.

Q: Are these cards comparable in memory capacity and bus width?

A: Yes. Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro has higher memory bandwidth (416.0 GB/s vs. 384.0 GB/s) and faster effective memory speed (13 Gbps vs. 12 Gbps).

Q: Which card is better for a system with limited power delivery?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700, with a 130 W TDP, no power connectors, and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro RTX 4000 requires a 160 W TDP, a 1x 8-pin connector, and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the Quadro RTX 4000 comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where it posts 78,844 against the Radeon's 51,289. That 34.9% delta is the most decisive in the set and suggests NVIDIA's driver stack and architecture handle Vulkan far more efficiently. DirectX 11 is nearly as lopsided: 128 versus 78, a 39.1% gap that will matter for legacy applications and game engines still using DX11 paths. DirectX 10 follows at 34.3% (108 vs. 71), and DirectX 9 at 30.2% (205 vs. 143). Across the entire DirectX family, NVIDIA leads by margins from 7.7% (DX12) to 39.1% (DX11).

In compute-oriented benchmarks, the Quadro's advantage is consistent but smaller. Geekbench OpenCL shows 74,540 versus 52,787—a 29.2% lead. Passmark GPU Compute narrows that to 19.7% (6,176 vs. 4,961). The Passmark G3D score, a general 3D graphics metric, gives NVIDIA a 23.4% edge (15,117 vs. 11,583). Even the 2D test, Passmark G2D, tips to NVIDIA by 4.8% (846 vs. 805). The only test where the two cards approach parity is DirectX 12, where the Quadro's 52 beats the Radeon's 48 by 7.7%. That small margin may reflect the Radeon's newer RDNA architecture handling DX12 better than older APIs, but it is still a loss.

The data shows a pattern: the Quadro RTX 4000 wins by wider margins in older or more compute-heavy APIs (DX9, DX10, DX11, Vulkan, OpenCL) and by narrower margins in DX12 and 2D. For a professional user, that means NVIDIA is the safer bet across the board. The Radeon Pro 5700 does not win a single shared test, and its only unique benchmark—Geekbench Metal at 60,126—has no counterpart for the Quadro, so it cannot be used as a comparative data point.

Specification Differences

The two cards share several core specifications: both have 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, and both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The differences are more telling. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses a TU104 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, packs 13,600 million transistors on a 545 mm² die, and has a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The Radeon Pro 5700 uses Navi 10 on a 7 nm TSMC process, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die and a density of 41.0M per mm². The Radeon's smaller, denser die is more power-efficient on paper, but the Quadro has higher raw specs.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: the Quadro boosts to 1545 MHz versus 1350 MHz for the Radeon, though the Radeon has a higher base clock at 1243 MHz versus 1005 MHz. Memory bandwidth goes to NVIDIA at 416.0 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s, with faster effective memory speed (13 Gbps vs. 12 Gbps). Pixel rate is 98.88 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 86.40 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 222.5 GTexel/s versus 194.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.119 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 6.221 TFLOPS for AMD. FP16 is 14.24 TFLOPS versus 12.44 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

The Quadro also has dedicated RT cores (36) and tensor cores (288), which the Radeon lacks entirely. The Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Radeon is an IGP with no display outputs, while the Quadro is a single-slot card with 3x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 899 USD (stated once, per the data). The Radeon has no launch MSRP in the FACT PACK. The Radeon draws 130 W with no power connectors and a 300 W suggested PSU; the Quadro draws 160 W with a 1x 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro 5700 is built on RDNA 1.0, AMD's first-generation RDNA architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm node. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses NVIDIA's Turing architecture on a 12 nm process. The node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 12 nm, giving the Radeon a 41.0M transistors per mm² density versus 25.0M for the Quadro. Despite the smaller die, the Quadro packs more transistors overall (13,600 million vs. 10,300 million) because its die is more than twice as large (545 mm² vs. 251 mm²).

The most significant architectural divergence is in feature set. Turing includes 36 RT cores for ray tracing and 288 tensor cores for AI acceleration. RDNA 1.0 has no equivalent hardware—the Radeon Pro 5700 lists null values for both RT and tensor cores. This means the Quadro can accelerate ray-traced workloads and tensor-based operations (like DLSS or AI denoising) in hardware, while the Radeon must rely on compute shaders or lack the capability entirely. The FACT PACK confirms this: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon supports only DirectX 12 (12_1). That difference in API level reflects the hardware capabilities.

Memory architecture is similar on the surface—both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus—but bandwidth differs by 8.3% in favor of NVIDIA (416.0 vs. 384.0 GB/s). The Quadro's higher boost clock (1545 MHz vs. 1350 MHz) and higher memory clock (1625 MHz vs. 1500 MHz) drive its performance advantage across all tested APIs. The Radeon's lower TDP (130 W vs. 160 W) and lack of power connectors suggest it was designed for integrated Mac systems, not for peak performance. The Quadro's PCIe 3.0 interface is a generation behind the Radeon's PCIe 4.0, but benchmark data shows that does not help AMD in any test.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 is the faster card in every shared benchmark. It leads by 39.1% in DirectX 11, by 34.9% in Vulkan, by 29.2% in OpenCL, and by 23.4% in Passmark G3D. It has higher FP32 compute (7.119 vs. 6.221 TFLOPS), more memory bandwidth, dedicated RT and tensor cores, and a DirectX 12 Ultimate API level. The Quadro also has display outputs, making it a functional workstation card. Its launch MSRP is 899 USD. The only area where the Radeon Pro 5700 claims any numerical advantage is its average benchmark score (18,189 vs. 17,789), which is skewed by a Metal result with no NVIDIA counterpart, and its lower power draw (130 W vs. 160 W) with no external power connector.

Choose the Quadro RTX 4000 if you need professional graphics performance, compute acceleration, ray tracing, or tensor-based features. It is the only card in this comparison that wins any test. Choose the Radeon Pro 5700 only if your system cannot accommodate a discrete card with power connectors and display outputs—the data shows it is an IGP designed for Apple Mac environments, not a competitor in raw performance. The Quadro's 61st percentile versus the Radeon's 62nd percentile among all GPUs is statistically a tie, but that aggregate ranking hides the fact that in every direct comparison, NVIDIA wins outright. The Radeon's single advantage is its integrated nature and lower power requirements, which are irrelevant if you need actual rendering or compute output. For any workload that uses OpenCL, Vulkan, DirectX, or GPU compute, the Quadro RTX 4000 is the only data-supported choice.