AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 575X and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they occupy vastly different performance tiers and design philosophies. The Radeon Pro 575X is a 14 nm GCN 4.0 part aimed at integrated Mac systems, while the Quadro GV100 is a 12 nm Volta flagship with HBM2 memory and tensor cores. Benchmark data shows the GV100 dominates in raw compute, but the 575X holds its own in the 82nd percentile versus the GV100’s 80th percentile, which reflects the different benchmark suites used.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has a higher average benchmark score of 39,116, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro GV100’s 35,520. This is surprising given the GV100’s massive hardware advantage, but it stems from the GV100’s lower scores in Passmark legacy tests.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro GV100 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GV100 scores 150,004 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 76.8% higher than the Radeon Pro 575X’s 34,773. This is the largest single-test gap between the two cards.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth — 8x the capacity and 4x the bandwidth.

Q: Does the GV100 support newer DirectX features?

A: Yes. The GV100 supports DirectX 12_1, while the Radeon Pro 575X only supports DirectX 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GV100 has Vulkan 1.4 versus the 575X’s Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GV100 has a slightly higher transistor density at 25.9M per mm², versus the 575X’s 24.6M per mm². This is notable because the GV100 uses a larger 12 nm process from TSMC, while the 575X uses 14 nm from GlobalFoundries.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The GV100 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, requiring a 600 W power supply and one 8-pin connector. The 575X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational and fundamental. The Radeon Pro 575X uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro GV100 uses NVIDIA’s Volta architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process, with 21,100 million transistors on a massive 815 mm² die — nearly 3.7x the transistor count and 3.5x the die area.

The GV100 introduces 640 tensor cores, which the 575X lacks entirely. These tensor cores enable the GV100’s FP16 performance of 33.32 TFLOPS (at a 2:1 ratio versus FP32), while the 575X delivers only 4.489 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The shading unit count also differs dramatically: 5,120 on the GV100 versus 2,048 on the 575X. Texture mapping units (TMUs) are 320 versus 128, and render output units (ROPs) are 128 versus 32.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The 575X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus, while the GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus. This leads to a 4x bandwidth advantage for the GV100 (868.4 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s). Clock behavior differs too: the 575X lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), whereas the GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz, a boost of 1627 MHz, and a memory clock of 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective).

The GV100 also supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the 575X is limited to DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The 575X is an IGP with no power connectors and a 150 W TDP, while the GV100 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP and one 8-pin power connector.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins both head-to-head tests, and it wins by enormous margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 scores 150,004 versus the 575X’s 34,773, a 76.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 scores 139,526 versus 37,919, a 72.8% advantage. The GV100 also has a higher pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s).

However, the Radeon Pro 575X wins on average benchmark score (39,116 versus 35,520) and percentile ranking (82nd versus 80th percentile among all GPUs). This is due to the GV100’s weak Passmark scores: it only manages 140 in DirectX 10, 168 in DirectX 11, 84 in DirectX 12, 207 in DirectX 9, 836 in G2D, 19,650 in G3D, and 9,069 in GPU compute. These legacy and 2D tests drag down the GV100’s average despite its compute dominance.

The 575X is also far more efficient in terms of power draw relative to its size — it is an IGP with a 150 W TDP and no external power, whereas the GV100 requires a 250 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU. For integrated Mac systems or portable devices, the 575X is clearly the only viable option. For heavy compute workloads, the GV100’s massive FP32 (16.66 TFLOPS) and FP16 (33.32 TFLOPS) throughput, plus tensor cores, makes it the obvious choice.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. The Radeon Pro 575X uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 5,700 million transistors and a 232 mm² die. The Quadro GV100 uses Volta architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process with 21,100 million transistors and an 815 mm² die. Transistor density is 24.6M/mm² versus 25.9M/mm².

Memory is a stark contrast: the 575X has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GV100 has 32 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 575X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The GV100 adds 640 tensor cores, which the 575X does not have.

Clock speeds: the 575X lists no base or boost, only a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective). The GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz, boost of 1627 MHz, and memory clock of 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). Pixel rate is 35.07 GPixel/s versus 208.3 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 140.3 GTexel/s versus 520.6 GTexel/s. FP32 is 4.489 TFLOPS versus 16.66 TFLOPS; FP16 is 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specs: the 575X is a 150 W IGP with no power connectors, while the GV100 is a dual-slot 250 W card with one 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The GV100 measures 267 mm by 111 mm. The 575X has portable-device-dependent display outputs; the GV100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The 575X supports DirectX 12_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the GV100 supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two tests, and the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 scores 150,004 against the 575X’s 34,773, a delta of -76.8% for the AMD card. This means the GV100 is roughly 4.3x faster in raw OpenCL compute. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 scores 139,526 against 37,919, a delta of -72.8%, meaning the GV100 is about 3.7x faster in Vulkan workloads.

These results align with the theoretical specifications. The GV100’s FP32 throughput of 16.66 TFLOPS is 3.7x the 575X’s 4.489 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput of 33.32 TFLOPS is 7.4x the 575X’s 4.489 TFLOPS. The 4x memory bandwidth advantage (868.4 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s) and 8x memory capacity (32 GB versus 4 GB) further explain the gap in compute-heavy benchmarks.

However, the broader benchmark picture is more complex. The 575X’s average benchmark score of 39,116 exceeds the GV100’s 35,520. The 575X also holds an 82nd percentile rank versus the GV100’s 80th. This is driven by the GV100’s Passmark scores, which are anomalously low for a professional card: 140 in DirectX 10, 168 in DirectX 11, 84 in DirectX 12, and 207 in DirectX 9. These legacy API tests likely do not exercise the GV100’s modern architecture well, while the 575X’s GCN design handles them more consistently.

In terms of nearest rivals, the 575X is bracketed by the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (1.1% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (1.1% faster), while it is 1.1% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro 575 and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile. The GV100’s rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (0.2% faster), AMD Radeon Pro Duo (0.9% faster), NVIDIA T1000 (2.1% faster), and NVIDIA A2 (2.4% slower). This shows the GV100 sits in a tight performance cluster despite its high-end specs.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for most users. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the superior compute GPU by every measurable spec: 3.7x the FP32 throughput, 7.4x the FP16 throughput, 4x the memory bandwidth, 8x the memory capacity, and 640 tensor cores for AI workloads. In the two head-to-head tests, it wins by 76.8% and 72.8%. If you need raw processing power for OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the GV100 is the only logical pick.

But the GV100 is not universally better. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has a higher average benchmark score (39,116 versus 35,520) and a higher percentile rank (82 versus 80). It is also an IGP with a 150 W TDP, no external power connectors, and portable-device-dependent outputs, making it the only option for integrated Mac systems or compact devices. The GV100 requires a dual-slot chassis, a 600 W PSU, and a dedicated 8-pin connector — it is a full-size workstation card.

The release timeline also matters: the 575X launched in March 2019, while the GV100 launched in March 2018. The GV100’s predecessor is Quadro Pascal and its successor is Quadro Turing, indicating NVIDIA positioned it as a flagship professional part. The 575X has no documented predecessor or successor, reflecting its role as a niche Mac-specific IGP.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on platform and workload. If you are upgrading a Mac Pro or building a low-power integrated system, the 575X is the practical choice — it fits, it uses no external power, and it scores well in legacy benchmarks. If you are building a high-end workstation for compute, simulation, or AI, the GV100’s 32 GB of HBM2, 640 tensor cores, and 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance are in a different league, despite its lower average score in mixed test suites. The GV100’s launch MSRP was 8,999 USD, reflecting its professional positioning. Choose based on your actual workloads, not just aggregate scores.