AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

The data presents a fascinating contrast between two professional-grade GPUs from different architectural eras: the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X. While both target similar workstation workloads, their underlying designs and benchmark results reveal distinct strengths and weaknesses. This analysis examines the available data to determine which card holds the edge in various scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 achieves a score of 87,445 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 78,467. This represents a significant 11.4% lead for NVIDIA. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented API like OpenCL, suggesting that the GP100’s architecture is more efficient at handling general-purpose GPU workloads that are common in professional applications.

Interestingly, the AMD card has a separate Geekbench Metal score of 83,450, which is notably higher than its own OpenCL result. This indicates that the Radeon Pro Vega 64X may be better optimized for Apple’s Metal API, a crucial consideration for Mac-based workflows. However, since no Metal score exists for the Quadro GP100, a direct comparison on that API is impossible from this data.

Looking at the broader context, the GP100’s OpenCL score places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 64X’s average score lands it in the 92nd percentile. This near-identical percentile ranking underscores that both are elite performers. The 11.4% delta in the head-to-head test is the key differentiator, showing that while both are powerful, the NVIDIA card holds a clear compute advantage in this specific test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two cards is fundamental. The Quadro GP100 is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture using a 16 nm process at TSMC, featuring a massive 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die. In contrast, the Radeon Pro Vega 64X uses AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (25.1M/mm² vs 25.3M/mm²), but the GP100’s larger die allows it to pack significantly more hardware.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. Both cards have 16 GB of HBM2, but the GP100 uses a 4096-bit bus, yielding a massive 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 64X uses a narrower 2048-bit bus, resulting in 512.0 GB/s. This is a 43% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, which directly impacts memory-heavy workloads. The GP100 also has a higher memory clock at 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective) versus the AMD’s 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference dominates.

Core configurations tell a different story. The Vega 64X has more shading units (4096 vs 3584) and more texture mapping units (256 vs 224), giving it a higher texture rate of 375.8 GTexel/s versus the GP100’s 323.2 GTexel/s. However, the GP100 has more ROPs (96 vs 64), leading to a pixel rate of 138.5 GPixel/s versus 93.95 GPixel/s. The AMD card also claims higher FP32 (12.03 TFLOPS vs 10.34 TFLOPS) and FP16 (24.05 TFLOPS vs 20.69 TFLOPS) throughput.

The power profiles are similar, with the GP100 rated at 235 W and the Vega 64X at 250 W. The physical designs differ: the GP100 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 267 mm length, while the Vega 64X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and is portable device dependent. The GP100 also offers standard display outputs (1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the Vega 64X’s outputs are entirely dependent on the host device.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to clear scenarios where each card excels. The Quadro GP100 wins decisively in raw OpenCL compute performance, as evidenced by its 11.4% lead. This suggests it is the stronger choice for general compute tasks, scientific simulations, and any workload that leverages OpenCL. Its superior memory bandwidth (732.2 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s) and higher pixel rate also make it better suited for tasks involving large datasets or high-resolution rendering.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X, while losing the OpenCL test, shows a potential edge in Metal-based environments. Its Metal score of 83,450 is higher than its OpenCL score, implying that it is specifically optimized for Apple’s API. This makes it a compelling option for Mac Pro users who rely on Metal-accelerated applications. The Vega 64X also has higher raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, which could benefit certain compute workloads that are not memory-bandwidth-limited, despite its lower OpenCL result.

In terms of texture-heavy workloads, the Vega 64X’s higher TMU count and texture rate (375.8 GTexel/s) give it an advantage over the GP100. For tasks like 3D texture mapping or procedural generation, the AMD card could prove faster, even though the GP100 wins on overall compute. The GP100’s higher ROP count and pixel rate, conversely, make it preferable for tasks that involve heavy rasterization and pixel processing, such as final-frame rendering in some applications.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is the clear winner in the benchmark that matters most for direct comparison. Its 11.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial, and its superior memory bandwidth and pixel rate reinforce its position as the more powerful all-around compute card. The 93rd percentile ranking versus the Vega 64X’s 92nd, while close, further supports NVIDIA’s edge.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is not without merit, but its strengths are more niche. Its higher Metal score suggests it is a better fit for macOS ecosystems where Metal is the primary API. The higher FP32 and FP16 throughput could also be leveraged in specific compute scenarios, but the OpenCL deficit indicates that these theoretical advantages do not translate to better performance in this common benchmark.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance, especially in OpenCL-based workflows, the Quadro GP100 is the data-backed choice. For those locked into Apple’s ecosystem and requiring strong Metal performance, the Vega 64X appears to be the better option, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test. Ultimately, the choice hinges on the software environment and the specific APIs used.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445 compared to the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 78,467, giving the NVIDIA card an 11.4% lead.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro Vega 64X perform on its own Metal benchmark?

A: The AMD card achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 83,450, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 78,467, indicating stronger performance on Apple’s Metal API.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro GP100 has a 4096-bit bus providing 732.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Vega 64X has a 2048-bit bus providing 512.0 GB/s, a significant advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has 3584 shading units and 224 TMUs.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life products. The Quadro GP100 was released on 2016-09-30, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64X was released on 2019-03-18.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 has a TDP of 235 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has a TDP of 250 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro GP100 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die Size | 610 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1304 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1443 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 715 MHz (1430 Mbps) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps) |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 732.2 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 224 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 138.5 GPixel/s | 93.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 323.2 GTexel/s | 375.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.34 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 20.69 TFLOPS | 24.05 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 235 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

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

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