AMD Radeon RX 470 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The benchmark data separates these two GPUs by a wide margin, with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 dominating the AMD Radeon RX 470 in every directly comparable test. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the RX 470 posts an average of 28,996, while the Quadro RTX 8000 averages 28,421. Despite the Quadro’s lower average, its individual compute scores are vastly superior, indicating a different performance profile rather than overall equivalence. The RX 470 holds its own in the percentile ranking, sitting at the 74th percentile versus the Quadro’s same 74th percentile, but this is where the similarity ends.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison available in the data covers two compute-oriented tests, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 against the RX 470’s 33,568, a delta of -67.1% for the AMD card. This is not a marginal gap; the Quadro delivers roughly three times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The RX 470’s score of 33,568 is respectable for its class, but it is simply outclassed by the Turing-based professional card.

The second head-to-head test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows an even larger absolute gap. The Quadro RTX 8000 reaches 122,637, while the RX 470 manages 39,884, yielding a delta of -67.5%. Again, the NVIDIA card scores over three times higher. This pattern across both OpenCL and Vulkan suggests that the Quadro’s advantage is not API-specific but rather a fundamental difference in execution resources and memory bandwidth. The RX 470’s Vulkan score of 39,884 is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating reasonable API scaling, but it cannot close the chasm.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Quadro RTX 8000 also has scores in Passmark tests that the RX 470 lacks. For instance, the Quadro scores 19,799 in Passmark G3D and 9,992 in Passmark GPU Compute, while the RX 470 has no comparable entries in the data. The Quadro’s Passmark DirectX 11 score of 188 and DirectX 12 score of 79 are oddly low, but these are likely legacy or synthetic measures that do not reflect modern workloads. The RX 470, by contrast, has no Passmark entries at all, so the direct comparison remains limited to the two Geekbench tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 470 wins in no benchmark tests where a direct head-to-head score exists, as the data shows zero wins for the RX 470 and two for the Quadro RTX 8000. However, the RX 470 does have a higher average benchmark score than the Quadro (28,996 vs 28,421), which suggests it performs better in some unlisted tests or that its scores are more consistent across the board. The RX 470’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (delta +0.4%), Intel Arc A370M (delta -0.6%), and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH (delta -0.7%), indicating it sits in a competitive mid-range cluster.

The Quadro RTX 8000, on the other hand, wins decisively in compute-heavy scenarios. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (delta -0.6%), AMD FirePro S7150 (delta +1.1%), and AMD Radeon RX 570 (delta -1.2%), which are all lower-tier cards. This implies the Quadro’s average score is dragged down by its weak Passmark DirectX results, but its Geekbench compute scores are in a different league. For users prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks—such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference—the Quadro is the clear choice. The RX 470, with its 74th percentile ranking, is better suited for general-purpose gaming or light compute where its lower power draw and smaller footprint matter more.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 470 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This larger chip contains 18,600 million transistors across a 754 mm² die, with a density of 24.7M per mm². The density figures are nearly identical, but the Quadro’s die is over three times larger, reflecting a much more complex design.

Core counts differ dramatically. The RX 470 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs—more than double in every category. The Quadro also introduces dedicated hardware absent from the RX 470: 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores. These enable features like real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, which the GCN 4.0 architecture cannot handle natively. Clock speeds follow suit: the RX 470 runs at 926 MHz base and 1,206 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at 1,395 MHz base and 1,770 MHz boost.

Memory is another major divider. The RX 470 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 211.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s—more than triple the bandwidth and twelve times the capacity. The memory clock also differs: 1,650 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) for the RX 470 versus 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the Quadro. These memory specs alone explain much of the compute performance gap, as larger datasets and higher bandwidth are critical for professional workloads.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is straightforward for compute-intensive tasks: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins outright. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 101,883 is 67.1% higher than the RX 470’s 33,568, and its Vulkan score of 122,637 is 67.5% higher. The Quadro’s 48 GB of memory, 16.31 TFLOPS FP32, and 32.62 TFLOPS FP16 make it a professional-grade tool for rendering, scientific computing, and AI inference. The RX 470, with 4.940 TFLOPS FP32 and 4 GB of memory, cannot compete in these arenas.

However, the RX 470 is not without merit in its own context. Its average benchmark score of 28,996 edges out the Quadro’s 28,421, and it does so with a 120 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 260 W. The RX 470 also requires only a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin connector, while the Quadro needs 600 W and a 6-pin plus 8-pin setup. For users building a compact, power-efficient system for gaming or light productivity, the RX 470 is the sensible pick. For anyone needing maximum compute throughput or ray tracing capability, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the only logical choice, despite its higher power demands.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 470 has an average benchmark score of 28,996, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 averages 28,421.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122,637 versus the RX 470’s 39,884, a delta of -67.5% for the AMD card.

Q: Does the RX 470 support ray tracing?

A: No, the RX 470 has no ray tracing cores, while the Quadro RTX 8000 has 72.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 470 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: They are nearly identical: the RX 470 has 24.6M transistors per mm², and the Quadro RTX 8000 has 24.7M per mm².

Q: What is the power consumption of each card?

A: The RX 470 has a TDP of 120 W, and the Quadro RTX 8000 has a TDP of 260 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The process node is 14 nm for the RX 470 versus 12 nm for the Quadro RTX 8000. Transistor count is 5,700 million versus 18,600 million, and die size is 232 mm² versus 754 mm². Base clock is 926 MHz versus 1,395 MHz, and boost clock is 1,206 MHz versus 1,770 MHz. Memory size is 4 GB versus 48 GB, type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6, bus width is 256-bit versus 384-bit, and bandwidth is 211.2 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 2,048 versus 4,608, TMUs are 128 versus 288, and ROPs are 32 versus 96. The Quadro adds 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, which the RX 470 lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 38.59 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s, texture rate is 154.4 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 4.940 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS. FP16 is 4.940 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RX 470 versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Quadro. TDP is 120 W versus 260 W, power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin, and suggested PSU is 300 W versus 600 W. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.0b + 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a + 1x USB Type-C. DirectX support is 12 (12_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2), and Vulkan is 1.3 versus 1.4. Dimensions are 240 mm length versus 267 mm length.