AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are both end-of-life workstation graphics solutions, but they target very different segments of the market. The Quadro GP100 is a dual-slot, PCIe card from NVIDIA’s Pascal generation, while the Radeon Pro Vega 48 is an integrated-class GPU (listed as IGP) designed for portable Mac systems. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap in compute workloads, but the architectural differences are substantial enough that the choice between them depends on the specific application environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA Quadro GP100. The Quadro GP100 scores 87445 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 53757 points. This represents a 62.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card. That is not a marginal lead; it is a dominant margin in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

To put that score into context, the Quadro GP100 sits at the 93rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 at 87108 points (a 0.4% difference), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX at 85637 points (2.1% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91134 points (4% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91671 points (4.6% ahead). The Quadro GP100 is therefore competitive with modern mid-range workstation cards, even though it is based on older Pascal architecture.

The Radeon Pro Vega 48, by contrast, lands at the 88th percentile with an average benchmark score of 60140 points across all recorded tests. Its OpenCL score of 53757 is its weakest recorded result, while its Metal score reaches 69010 and its Vulkan score reaches 57653. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60326 points (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 at 60347 points (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58657 points (2.5% lower), and the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58528 points (2.8% lower). The Vega 48 is thus clustered tightly around the 60000-point mark, far below the Quadro GP100’s 87445.

The head-to-head table shows exactly one recorded test, and the NVIDIA card wins it outright. The 62.7% delta means that in pure OpenCL compute, the Quadro GP100 delivers roughly two-thirds more performance than the Vega 48. For workloads that rely heavily on OpenCL, such as certain scientific simulations or rendering pipelines, that difference is enormous.

However, the Vega 48 has a notable strength in API-specific tests. Its Metal score of 69010 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that the card is better optimized for Apple’s Metal framework. The Vulkan score of 57653 also exceeds the OpenCL result. The Quadro GP100 has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores in the database, so the comparison is limited to OpenCL only. If a user’s software stack relies on Metal, the Vega 48 may perform relatively better than its OpenCL score implies, though the database does not provide a direct cross-API comparison between these two cards.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries and process nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip built on a 16 nm TSMC process, with 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. The transistor density is 25.1M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a slightly higher density of 25.3M per mm². Despite the older node, the Vega 48 achieves a marginally denser layout, but the Quadro GP100 has a much larger overall chip.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The Quadro GP100 carries 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 732.2 GB/s and a memory clock of 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective). The Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). That means the Quadro GP100 has double the capacity, double the bus width, and roughly 82% more bandwidth. The Vega 48’s memory clock is higher, but the narrower bus limits its overall throughput.

Compute resources also favor the Quadro GP100. The NVIDIA card has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output units. Its peak pixel rate is 138.5 GPixel/s and texture rate is 323.2 GTexel/s. The Vega 48 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 76.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 230.4 GTexel/s. The Quadro GP100 is roughly 80% higher in pixel rate and 40% higher in texture rate.

Floating-point performance follows the same pattern. The Quadro GP100 delivers 10.34 TFLOPS for FP32 and 20.69 TFLOPS for FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The Vega 48 provides 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.75 TFLOPS FP16, also at 2:1. The NVIDIA card is about 40% faster in both precision levels. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores; both rely on traditional shader-based compute.

Power and physical design differ fundamentally. The Quadro GP100 is a dual-slot card with a 235 W TDP, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 550 W. Its dimensions are 267 mm in length (10.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The Vega 48 has no listed TDP, no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor), meaning it is designed to be soldered onto a motherboard, typically for portable or compact Mac systems. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," which confirms its integrated nature.

Both cards use PCIe 3.0 x16 as the bus interface. API support is identical: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The release dates are far apart: the Quadro GP100 launched on 2016-09-30, while the Vega 48 arrived on 2019-03-18. The Quadro GP100 has a defined predecessor (Quadro Maxwell) and successor (Quadro Volta), while the Vega 48 has neither in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87445 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 53757 points. The Quadro GP100 leads by 62.7%.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Quadro GP100 provides 732.2 GB/s across a 4096-bit HBM2 bus with 16 GB capacity. The Vega 48 provides 402.4 GB/s across a 2048-bit bus with 8 GB capacity. The NVIDIA card has roughly 82% more bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards suitable for the same form factor?

A: No. The Quadro GP100 is a dual-slot, 267 mm long PCIe card with a 235 W TDP and a single 8-pin connector. The Vega 48 is an IGP with no power connectors and no listed TDP, designed for portable devices where the display outputs depend on the host system.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Quadro GP100 has a density of 25.1M transistors per mm² on a 610 mm² die (15,300 million total). The Vega 48 has 25.3M per mm² on a 495 mm² die (12,500 million total). The densities are nearly identical, but the Quadro GP100’s die is 23% larger.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro GP100 has 3584 shading units, compared to 3072 on the Vega 48. The NVIDIA card also has more TMUs (224 vs 192) and more ROPs (96 vs 64).

Q: Is there any API where the Vega 48 outperforms its own OpenCL score?

A: Yes. The Vega 48’s Metal score is 69010 and its Vulkan score is 57653, both higher than its OpenCL score of 53757. The Quadro GP100 only has a recorded OpenCL score in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear compute performance winner: the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 dominates in OpenCL, the only shared benchmark, by a 62.7% margin. For any workstation task that uses OpenCL, the Quadro GP100 is the stronger choice, and its 93rd percentile standing among all GPUs confirms it remains a competitive compute card even against newer rivals like the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and NVIDIA RTX A4500.

The Radeon Pro Vega 48, however, is not designed for the same use case. Its IGP classification and lack of discrete power connectors indicate it is meant for integrated mobile platforms, likely Apple Mac systems. In that context, its Metal score of 69010 is its strongest recorded result, and it sits at the 88th percentile. The Vega 48’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, which is a surprising comparison given the RTX 4090’s reputation, but the database shows they are within 0.3% of each other in average score. That suggests the Vega 48, despite its age, holds up well in certain API-specific workloads.

For a desktop workstation with expansion slots, the Quadro GP100 is the obvious pick based on raw performance, memory capacity, and bandwidth. For a portable or integrated system where the GPU is fixed to the motherboard, the Vega 48 is the only option of the two, and its Metal performance is respectable. The Quadro GP100 wins the head-to-head, but the Vega 48 is not a direct competitor in form factor or target platform. The database records one win for the Quadro GP100 and zero for the Vega 48 in direct tests.

Users who prioritize OpenCL compute, large memory buffers, or high bandwidth should choose the Quadro GP100. Users who require a power-efficient, connector-free, integrated GPU for a Mac-style environment will find the Vega 48 adequate, especially if their software leverages Metal.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro GP100 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 |

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

| Chip | GP100 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 15,300 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 610 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1304 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1443 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective) | 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 732.2 GB/s | 402.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 224 | 192 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 138.5 GPixel/s | 76.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 323.2 GTexel/s | 230.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.34 TFLOPS | 7.373 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1) | 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 235 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not listed |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 111 mm height | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2016-09-30 | 2019-03-18 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | Not listed |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Not listed |

| Average Benchmark Score | 87445 | 60140 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 93 | 88 |

| OpenCL Score | 87445 | 53757 |

| Metal Score | Not recorded | 69010 |

| Vulkan Score | Not recorded | 57653 |