AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA Quadro GP100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two workstation cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 scores 154,366 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445 points. This produces a delta of 76.5% in favor of the AMD card, meaning the W7800 delivers nearly three-quarters more raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The gap is decisive and consistent with the architectural gulf between the two generations.

Looking at broader database averages, the W7800 holds an average benchmark score of 164,894, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 at 165,217 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB at 162,504 (1.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X at 168,574 (2.2% higher). These deltas are all within roughly two percentage points, indicating that the W7800 sits squarely in a competitive mid-range professional tier where small margins separate top contenders.

The Quadro GP100, by contrast, records an average benchmark score of 87,445, good for the 93rd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 at 87,108 (0.4% lower), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX at 85,637 (2.1% lower), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 (4.0% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91,671 (4.6% higher). The GP100's position among these cards shows it remains competitive against lower-tier contemporary workstation parts, but it cannot approach the absolute performance level of the W7800.

The single head-to-head result shows the W7800 winning the only recorded match, with 1 win for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA. No Vulkan score is available for the Quadro GP100 in the database, so the comparison rests entirely on OpenCL. That limitation does not diminish the magnitude of the OpenCL delta: a 76.5% advantage is substantial by any standard, and it aligns with the theoretical compute specifications examined later in this analysis.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. Its process node is 5 nm at TSMC, housing 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density reaches 109.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 uses the GP100 chip based on Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It contains 15,300 million transistors across a 610 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The W7800 packs nearly four times as many transistors into a smaller physical area, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The W7800 runs at a base clock of 1895 MHz and boosts to 2525 MHz. The GP100 operates at a base of 1304 MHz and boosts to 1443 MHz. The AMD card's boost clock exceeds the NVIDIA card's boost by over 1000 MHz, which compounds the architectural efficiency gains. Memory clocks also diverge: the W7800's GDDR6 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate, while the GP100's HBM2 memory runs at 715 MHz with 1430 Mbps effective. The GP100 compensates with an enormous 4096-bit bus width versus the W7800's 256-bit bus, resulting in bandwidth of 732.2 GB/s for the GP100 against 576.0 GB/s for the W7800. Despite the older memory technology, the GP100 actually delivers 27% more raw memory bandwidth, a notable advantage for bandwidth-bound workloads.

Shading resources favor the W7800 heavily. It has 4480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, and 128 raster output units. The GP100 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The W7800 also includes 70 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GP100, which has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The GP100 also lacks tensor cores. In terms of throughput, the W7800 achieves 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The GP100 manages 10.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The AMD card offers 4.4 times the FP32 throughput and 4.4 times the FP16 throughput. Pixel rates are 323.2 GPixel/s for the W7800 versus 138.5 GPixel/s for the GP100, while texture rates are 707.0 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s.

Power and interface specifications also differ. The W7800 draws 260 W TDP with two 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 600 W PSU. The GP100 draws 235 W with a single 8-pin connector and a suggested 550 W PSU. The W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the GP100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the W7800 provides three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the GP100 provides one DVI and four DisplayPort 1.4a. API support favors the W7800 with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GP100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 than the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 in OpenCL?

A: The W7800 scores 154,366 points versus 87,445 points for the GP100, a delta of 76.5% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what are the memory types?

A: The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GP100 has 16 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus and 732.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GP100 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The W7800 includes 70 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for each card?

A: The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16. The GP100 delivers 10.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.69 TFLOPS FP16.

Q: What interface do these cards use?

A: The W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The GP100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Q: Which card is still in production?

A: The W7800 has an active production status. The GP100 is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | NVIDIA Quadro GP100 |

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

| Chip | Navi 31 | GP100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Pascal |

| Process node | 5 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 15,300 million |

| Die size | 529 mm² | 610 mm² |

| Transistor density | 109.1M / mm² | 25.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1895 MHz | 1304 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2525 MHz | 1443 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 715 MHz, 1430 Mbps effective |

| Memory size | 32 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 732.2 GB/s |

| Shading units | 4480 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 280 | 224 |

| ROPs | 128 | 96 |

| RT cores | 70 | None |

| Pixel rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 138.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 323.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 45.25 TFLOPS | 10.34 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 20.69 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 235 W |

| Power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 280 mm (11 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 110 mm (4.3 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | Not specified |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2023-04-12 | 2016-09-30 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | None | Quadro Volta |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 45.25 TFLOPS dwarfs the GP100's 10.34 TFLOPS, and the FP16 advantage is equally pronounced at 90.50 TFLOPS versus 20.69 TFLOPS. Any workload that depends on shader math, general GPU compute, or FP16 tensor-style operations will favor the W7800. The 76.5% OpenCL benchmark delta confirms this in practice. The W7800 also wins on pixel rate (323.2 GPixel/s versus 138.5 GPixel/s) and texture rate (707.0 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s), meaning rasterization-heavy tasks also lean toward the AMD card. Ray tracing support is exclusive to the W7800, so any ray-traced rendering workload has no equivalent on the GP100.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins in one specific area: memory bandwidth. Its 732.2 GB/s exceeds the W7800's 576.0 GB/s by 27%. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, such as large data transfers or certain scientific simulations, the GP100 could hold an advantage despite its older architecture. The GP100 also draws slightly less power at 235 W versus 260 W, and it requires only one 8-pin connector versus two on the W7800, which could simplify power delivery in some systems. The GP100's HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus also provides a different memory access pattern that may benefit specific applications.

The W7800 also wins on software and interface modernity. It supports PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and Vulkan 1.4, all newer than the GP100's PCIe 3.0, DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.3. Display output capabilities favor the W7800 with DisplayPort 2.1 versus the GP100's DisplayPort 1.4a and DVI. The W7800 also has double the memory capacity at 32 GB versus 16 GB, which matters for large datasets or multi-application workflows.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 as the clear performance winner for almost all use cases. Its 76.5% OpenCL advantage, 4.4 times the FP32 throughput, 4.4 times the FP16 throughput, and exclusive ray tracing support make it the superior choice for compute-heavy professional workloads. The W7800 also offers double the memory capacity, a newer process node, higher clock speeds, and broader API compatibility. Its active production status and 2023 release date contrast with the GP100's end-of-life status and 2016 release.

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 retains niche relevance for bandwidth-critical tasks. Its 732.2 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the W7800 by a meaningful margin, and its lower power draw and single 8-pin connector may appeal to systems with constrained power delivery. However, the GP100's 93rd percentile standing among all GPUs, with an average score of 87,445, places it in a different performance class than the W7800's 97th percentile and 164,894 average.

For professionals choosing between these two, the W7800 is the rational pick for general GPU compute, rendering, simulations, or any workload that scales with shading units and clock speed. The GP100 makes sense only for specialized bandwidth-bound applications where the 4096-bit HBM2 interface provides a unique advantage, and where the user accepts the older Pascal architecture, lack of ray tracing, and end-of-life status. The benchmark record contains exactly one head-to-head comparison, and AMD wins it outright.