AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 represent two vastly different eras and tiers of professional graphics hardware. The data shows the Quadro GV100 dominates in raw compute benchmarks, but the Radeon Pro 575 holds its own as a legacy mobile solution. The GV100 delivers roughly 4.3x the OpenCL performance and 3.7x the Vulkan performance of the Pro 575, yet the older AMD part remains a relevant entry point in its niche. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, what separates their architectures, and who should consider each based strictly on benchmark data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of two different usage profiles. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins every head-to-head comparison in this dataset, taking both available tests. Its advantage is overwhelming in compute-heavy workloads: in Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 scores 150,004 compared to the Pro 575’s 34,596, a delta of -76.9% from the AMD card’s perspective. Similarly, in Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 posts 139,526 against 37,878, with the Pro 575 trailing by -72.9%. For any task that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the GV100 is the clear champion.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575, however, wins in the context of its own performance class. Its average benchmark score of 39,555 places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the GV100’s 80th percentile (which averages 35,520 across all its tests). The Pro 575’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, with an average score of 39,568 and a delta of 0% — essentially a tie. It also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro 575X by 1.1% (39,116) and trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 by -1.3% (40,063) and the AMD Radeon Pro 580 by -1.9% (40,318). For a compact, low-power mobile workstation, the Pro 575 sits comfortably in the mid-range pack.

The GV100’s wins are not just about raw scores. Its average benchmark score of 35,520 is dragged down by low DirectX tests (e.g., Passmark DirectX 9 at 207, DirectX 12 at 84), which are not representative of its compute strengths. When isolating the Geekbench results, the GV100’s dominance is absolute. The Pro 575 has no dedicated DirectX scores in this dataset, so its wins are purely positional — it competes well against similar-generation and similar-form-factor parts, whereas the GV100 competes in a higher performance tier altogether.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is massive, reflecting their different release windows and target markets. The AMD Radeon Pro 575 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 uses the GV100 chip on Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It contains 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, with a density of 25.9 million per square millimeter. The GV100’s die is over 3.5x larger and holds nearly 4x the transistors.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Pro 575 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GV100 offers 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, with a staggering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth — exactly 4x the capacity and roughly 4x the bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz and a boost clock of 1627 MHz, while the Pro 575’s base and boost clocks are not listed, though its memory runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The GV100’s memory runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective), highlighting the efficiency of its wider bus.

Compute resources favor the NVIDIA card heavily. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, plus 640 tensor cores. The Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no tensor cores. This translates to a pixel rate of 208.3 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 520.6 GTexel/s for the GV100, versus 35.07 GPixel/s and 140.3 GTexel/s for the Pro 575. FP32 throughput tells a similar story: 16.66 TFLOPS for the GV100 against 4.489 TFLOPS for the Pro 575. Notably, the GV100’s FP16 rate is 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pro 575’s FP16 is 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning the Volta part doubles its throughput on half-precision workloads.

Power and physical design differ as well. The Pro 575 is a 150 W MXM module with no power connectors, suited for portable devices. The GV100 is a 250 W dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU, measuring 267 mm in length. API support is similar on paper — both support DirectX 12 (with the GV100 at 12_1 vs. Pro 575 at 12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.4 for GV100, 1.3 for Pro 575). The GV100 also offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Pro 575’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a one-sided contest in the two shared benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scores 150,004 against the AMD Radeon Pro 575’s 34,596. The delta of -76.9% from the AMD side means the AMD card delivers less than a quarter of the GV100’s performance. This is the largest gap in the dataset, reflecting the GV100’s 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 capability versus the Pro 575’s 4.489 TFLOPS — a 3.7x theoretical advantage that shows up in practice.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 again wins decisively with 139,526 versus 37,878, a delta of -72.9%. This narrower gap (relative to OpenCL) still leaves the Pro 575 at roughly 27% of the GV100’s score. The GV100’s 640 tensor cores and Volta architecture likely contribute to its Vulkan compute efficiency, though the dataset does not isolate specific workload types. The Pro 575’s Vulkan score of 37,878 is higher than its OpenCL score of 34,596, suggesting the GCN 4.0 architecture handles Vulkan slightly better than OpenCL, but neither approaches the GV100’s output.

It is worth remembering the GV100 has additional benchmark data not shared with the Pro 575. Its Passmark scores include a G3D score of 19,650 and a GPU compute score of 9,069, alongside DirectX tests ranging from 84 (DirectX 12) to 207 (DirectX 9). These numbers are not directly comparable to the Pro 575 since the AMD card lacks equivalent entries, but they contribute to the GV100’s average benchmark score of 35,520. The Pro 575’s average of 39,555 is higher because its three Geekbench scores are all above 34,000, whereas the GV100’s low DirectX scores (84-207) pull its average down significantly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100, with 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16, versus the AMD Radeon Pro 575’s 4.489 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card offer?

A: The GV100 provides 868.4 GB/s over a 4096-bit HBM2 bus, while the Pro 575 offers 217.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The Pro 575 averages 39,555 (82nd percentile), while the GV100 averages 35,520 (80th percentile). The Pro 575’s average is higher despite losing head-to-head tests.

Q: Why does the GV100’s average score look lower than the Pro 575’s?

A: The GV100’s average includes low Passmark DirectX scores (e.g., 84 for DirectX 12, 140 for DirectX 10), which drag its mean down, whereas the Pro 575 only has Geekbench scores above 34,000.

Q: Which card has more shading units and tensor cores?

A: The GV100 has 5,120 shading units and 640 tensor cores; the Pro 575 has 2,048 shading units and no tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Pro 575 is a 150 W MXM module with no power connectors; the GV100 is a 250 W dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal for compute-intensive professional workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 76.9% (OpenCL) and 72.9% (Vulkan), offers 8x the memory capacity (32 GB vs. 4 GB), and delivers over 3.7x the FP32 throughput. For tasks like simulations, rendering, or machine learning inference that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the GV100 is the only choice between these two — provided the system can accommodate its 250 W TDP, dual-slot size, and 600 W PSU requirement. Its launch MSRP is 8,999 USD, reflecting its flagship positioning.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575, however, is not without merit. Its 150 W power envelope, MXM form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suited for portable or compact workstations where the GV100 physically cannot fit. Its average benchmark score of 39,555 is actually higher than the GV100’s 35,520, and it sits in the 82nd percentile versus the GV100’s 80th — but this is a statistical artifact of the GV100’s weak DirectX scores. Within its peer group, the Pro 575 is competitive: it matches the RTX A500 Mobile (0% delta), beats the Radeon Pro 575X by 1.1%, and trails the WX 7100 by just 1.3%. For users constrained to mobile form factors or legacy GCN-based workflows, the Pro 575 remains a viable part.

Pick the GV100 if you need maximum compute performance, large memory capacity, or tensor core acceleration, and your chassis can handle a 250 W dual-slot card. Pick the Pro 575 if you require a low-power MXM module for a portable device, and your workloads are modest enough to run within 4 GB of VRAM. The benchmark data shows no contest in raw speed, but the Pro 575’s niche is defined by its physical and power characteristics rather than its performance envelope.