AMD Radeon R9 370X vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 and the AMD Radeon R9 370X sit at very different points in GPU history, and the recorded data reflects that gap plainly. The Quadro RTX 4000 is a Turing-based workstation card built on TSMC's 12 nm process, while the Radeon R9 370X is a GCN 1.0 part from AMD's Pirate Islands generation etched on a 28 nm node. Both cards are now end-of-life, both share a 450 W suggested PSU rating and a PCIe 3.0 x16 host interface, and both carry the same board height of 111 mm. Beyond those coincidences, the database shows the Quadro winning every head-to-head benchmark recorded, sometimes by margins that make the comparison lopsided. The more interesting story is in how each card's strengths map to specific workloads, and in what the specification differences reveal about three years of architectural progress.

Where Each One Wins

On raw benchmark wins, this is a clean sweep for the Quadro RTX 4000. It takes both head-to-head tests in the database: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. There is no recorded test where the R9 370X comes out ahead, so any use-case split has to be framed carefully.

The Quadro's dominance is widest in modern API workloads. Its Vulkan score of 78,844 against the R9 370X's 9,018 is the largest gap in the dataset, a delta of 774.3 percent. That reflects not just raw horsepower but API support: the Quadro reports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature level, while the R9 370X tops out at Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). Any workload that leans on newer graphics features, ray tracing included, is territory where the R9 370X simply cannot follow, since it lacks RT cores and tensor cores entirely.

The R9 370X's only unique data point is a Geekbench Metal score of 12,676, a test for which the Quadro has no recorded result in the database. That is not a win over the NVIDIA card, but it is the one benchmark lane where the AMD part has exclusive coverage. In practical terms, the R9 370X's claim to relevance is its connectivity for legacy display setups: it offers 2x DVI alongside HDMI 1.4a and DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Quadro relies on DisplayPort 1.4a and USB Type-C outputs. For older monitor configurations, that DVI pair is the only concrete advantage the data supports.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here spans three years and two full process-node jumps. The Quadro RTX 4000 uses the TU104 chip on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 12 nm process. The R9 370X uses the Trinidad chip on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both companies used the same foundry, but the node difference shows up everywhere in the silicon metrics.

The Quadro's die measures 545 mm² and packs 13,600 million transistors, a density of 25.0M per mm². The R9 370X's Trinidad die is 212 mm² with 2,800 million transistors, a density of 13.2M per mm². In other words, the Quadro carries nearly five times the transistor count on more than double the die area, at roughly twice the density. Those are fundamentally different classes of silicon.

The execution resource counts follow the same pattern. The Quadro fields 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The R9 370X has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs and 32 ROPs, with no RT or tensor hardware at all. Ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads are therefore exclusive to the NVIDIA card by design, not just by performance.

Memory subsystems differ just as sharply. The Quadro pairs 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus running at 13 Gbps effective, delivering 416.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256 bit bus width at 5.6 Gbps effective, for 179.2 GB/s. The shared bus width is a curiosity, but the memory type, capacity and bandwidth all favor the Quadro heavily, and the 2 GB capacity is a hard ceiling for modern workloads.

Feature support diverges in kind as well. Both cards report OpenGL 4.6, but DirectX and Vulkan support levels favor the Quadro, as noted above. The Quadro also supports FP16 computation at 14.24 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio to FP32, a capability the database does not record for the R9 370X at all.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in the head-to-head set, and the Quadro wins both.

Geekbench OpenCL: 74,540 for the Quadro RTX 4000 versus 25,893 for the R9 370X, a delta of 187.9 percent in NVIDIA's favor. The Quadro's OpenCL result is nearly triple the AMD card's, which tracks with the raw compute discrepancy: 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 against 2.637 TFLOPS, close to a threefold gap in theoretical shader throughput.

Geekbench Vulkan: 78,844 for the Quadro against 9,018 for the R9 370X, a delta of 774.3 percent. This is the most one-sided result in the database for this pairing, and the API version split explains part of it. The Quadro reports Vulkan 1.4 support while the R9 370X sits at 1.2.170, so the AMD card is not just slower, it is operating with an older feature set.

The Quadro's broader benchmark sheet reinforces the picture. It posts a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,873, Passmark G3D at 15,117, Passmark GPU Compute at 6,176, and Passmark DirectX results spanning 205 (DX9), 128 (DX11), 108 (DX10) and 52 (DX12). Its average benchmark score across the database is 17,789, placing it in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The R9 370X averages 15,862 and sits in the 58th percentile.

The percentile gap of three points is modest, but the average-score gap of 1,927 points in absolute terms is consistent across the rivals each card is grouped with. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 7790 (average 17,666, 0.7 percent behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 (17,639, 0.9 percent behind), the AMD Radeon 780M (17,588, 1.1 percent behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 (17,551, 1.4 percent behind). The R9 370X clusters with the AMD Radeon RX 7700 (15,852, 0.1 percent behind), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16,014, 1 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 (15,679, 1.2 percent behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (16,129, 1.7 percent ahead). Notably, both cards land in surprisingly similar neighborhood rankings despite the enormous hardware disparity, a reminder that aggregate percentiles blend many test types.

Specification Differences

The cards match on a handful of fields: both are end-of-life, both use PCIe 3.0 x16, both suggest a 450 W PSU, and both stand 111 mm tall. Everything else of consequence differs.

Process and silicon: 12 nm versus 28 nm, both from TSMC. The Quadro's TU104 die is 545 mm² with 13,600 million transistors; Trinidad is 212 mm² with 2,800 million. Densities are 25.0M versus 13.2M per mm².

Clocks: the Quadro runs a 1005 MHz base and 1545 MHz boost; the R9 370X runs 980 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1625 MHz (13 Gbps effective) against 1400 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective).

Memory: 8 GB GDDR6 at 416.0 GB/s versus 2 GB GDDR5 at 179.2 GB/s, on identical 256 bit buses.

Compute and output rates: the Quadro delivers 98.88 GPixel/s, 222.5 GTexel/s, 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.24 TFLOPS FP16. The R9 370X delivers 32.96 GPixel/s, 82.40 GTexel/s and 2.637 TFLOPS FP32, with no FP16 figure recorded.

Power and physical form: the Quadro is a 160 W single-slot card with one 8-pin connector, 241 mm long. The R9 370X is a 180 W dual-slot card with two 6-pin connectors, 221 mm long. The Quadro is longer but slimmer; the AMD card draws more power while delivering far less computed work per watt of that draw.

Display outputs: 3x DisplayPort 1.4a plus USB Type-C on the Quadro, versus 2x DVI, HDMI 1.4a and DisplayPort 1.2 on the R9 370X.

Lineage and dates: the Quadro RTX 4000 launched 2018-11-12 with a launch MSRP of 899 USD, succeeded by Workstation Ampere. The R9 370X launched 2015-08-26 with a launch MSRP of 199 USD, succeeded by Arctic Islands. API support is DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4 on the NVIDIA side against DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170 on the AMD side, with OpenGL 4.6 common to both.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 wins both recorded tests. It leads Geekbench OpenCL 74,540 to 25,893 (187.9 percent) and Geekbench Vulkan 78,844 to 9,018 (774.3 percent).

Q: How do their overall database rankings compare?

A: The Quadro RTX 4000 averages 17,789 and sits in the 61st percentile of all GPUs. The R9 370X averages 15,862 and sits in the 58th percentile.

Q: Can the R9 370X handle ray tracing?

A: No. It has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 4000 includes 36 RT cores and 288 tensor cores, making ray tracing and tensor workloads exclusive to the NVIDIA card in this pairing.

Q: Which card needs the bigger power supply?

A: Both specify the same 450 W suggested PSU. However, the Quadro's board power is 160 W through a single 8-pin connector, while the R9 370X draws 180 W through two 6-pin connectors.

Q: Which card fits in tighter spaces?

A: The Quadro is single-slot but longer at 241 mm. The R9 370X is dual-slot but shorter at 221 mm. Both share the same 111 mm height, so the choice depends on whether slot count or length is the constraint.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The Quadro has 8 GB of GDDR6 delivering 416.0 GB/s. The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 delivering 179.2 GB/s. Both use a 256 bit bus, but the capacity and bandwidth gaps heavily favor the Quadro for memory-heavy workloads.