AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 and AMD Radeon RX 480 sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects a chasm in raw compute capability. The GV100 dominates every shared test, but the RX 480 remains a relevant baseline for mainstream workloads. Below is a detailed breakdown based strictly on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison includes only two common benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins decisively, leaving the AMD Radeon RX 480 with zero wins in this matchup.

• Geekbench OpenCL: The GV100 scores 150,004, while the RX 480 scores 37,998. This translates to a delta of 294.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part. That is nearly four times the raw compute score, a gap that underscores the GV100’s positioning as a professional compute accelerator rather than a consumer gaming card.

• Geekbench Vulkan: The GV100 posts 139,526, versus 45,968 for the RX 480, a delta of 203.5%. While Vulkan is more relevant to gaming, the GV100’s advantage persists, indicating that even in modern API workloads, the older professional card outclasses the mainstream AMD offering.

The overall win tally is 2–0 for the Quadro GV100. However, the RX 480 has additional benchmarks in its own profile—such as 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (966), Geekbench Metal (51,057), and PassMark scores—that the GV100 does not share in the head-to-head table. The data shows the GV100’s average benchmark score is 35,520, placing it at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 480’s average is 33,997, at the 78th percentile. The percentile gap is narrow (2 points), but the average score difference is 1,523 points, favoring the GV100.

For context, the GV100’s nearest rival by average score is the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860, a delta of –0.9%), meaning the GV100 is slightly behind that card. The RX 480’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, a delta of 0.4%), showing the RX 480 is marginally ahead of that mobile part. These deltas are small, suggesting that both cards sit in competitive brackets relative to their peers, but the GV100’s absolute scores are far higher.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins with a score of 150,004 versus the AMD Radeon RX 480’s 37,998, a delta of 294.8%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The GV100 has an average benchmark score of 35,520, while the RX 480 averages 33,997. The GV100 is ahead by 1,523 points.

Q: Does the RX 480 have any benchmark wins over the GV100?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks provided, the RX 480 has zero wins (winsB: 0), while the GV100 has two wins (winsA: 2).

Q: How do these cards rank against all GPUs?

A: The GV100 sits at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, and the RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile, a difference of only 2 percentile points.

Q: What is the GV100’s score in Geekbench Vulkan relative to the RX 480?

A: The GV100 scores 139,526 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 45,968 for the RX 480, resulting in a 203.5% higher score for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has a higher PassMark G3D score?

A: The GV100 has a PassMark G3D score of 19,650. The RX 480 does not have a PassMark G3D score listed in the data pack, so no direct comparison is possible from the provided facts.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 294.8% higher than the RX 480, and its Vulkan score is 203.5% higher. These are not marginal gains—they represent a different performance class entirely.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the GV100 is the clear choice. Its 32 GB of HBM2 memory, 5,120 shading units, and 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in professional workstation territory. The RX 480, with 8 GB GDDR5 and 5.834 TFLOPS FP32, is a mid-range consumer card from an earlier generation. The benchmark results align with this spec gap.

However, the RX 480 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 33,997 is only 4.3% lower than the GV100’s 35,520, despite the massive head-to-head deltas. This suggests that in aggregate workloads—including DirectX, OpenGL, and 2D tests—the RX 480 holds its own better than the compute-focused tests imply. The RX 480 also has a lower TDP (150 W versus 250 W) and a smaller die (232 mm² versus 815 mm²), but those are not performance metrics.

The verdict depends on workload. For compute-heavy professional tasks (OpenCL, Vulkan), the GV100 wins outright. For general-purpose or legacy API workloads, the RX 480’s average scores keep it competitive, though it never beats the GV100 in any shared test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification, reflecting their different market positions.

• Process Node: The GV100 uses a 12 nm process (TSMC), while the RX 480 uses 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). The smaller node gives the GV100 a manufacturing advantage.
• Transistors: The GV100 has 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die; the RX 480 has 5,700 million on a 232 mm² die. Transistor density is similar (25.9M/mm² vs 24.6M/mm²), but the GV100’s absolute count is nearly four times higher.
• Memory: The GV100 offers 32 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 480 offers 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GV100 has 3.4 times the bandwidth.
• Clock Speeds: The GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz and boost of 1627 MHz. The RX 480 has a base of 1120 MHz and boost of 1266 MHz. The GV100 boosts significantly higher.
• Compute Units: The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GV100 has over twice the shading units and four times the ROPs.
• FP32 / FP16: The GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The RX 480 delivers 5.834 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio).
• TDP: The GV100 is rated at 250 W; the RX 480 at 150 W. The GV100 requires a 600 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector; the RX 480 needs a 450 W PSU and a single 6-pin connector.
• Dimensions: The GV100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. The RX 480 is 240 mm long, 95 mm tall, and 35 mm wide.
• Display Outputs: The GV100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 480 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• APIs: The GV100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is as wide as the performance gap.

• Node and Foundry: The GV100 is built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, while the RX 480 uses GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node. This gives the GV100 a density edge (25.9M/mm² vs 24.6M/mm²) despite the massive die size difference.
• Core Architecture: The GV100 uses NVIDIA’s Volta architecture, the generation that introduced tensor cores. It has 640 tensor cores, which the RX 480 lacks entirely (the RX 480 has no tensor cores listed). This makes the GV100 uniquely suited for AI and deep learning workloads, though no specific AI benchmark is in the data.
• Memory Architecture: The GV100 uses HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, a high-bandwidth design aimed at data-intensive tasks. The RX 480 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, a conventional consumer layout.
• FP16 Handling: The GV100 doubles FP16 throughput (33.32 TFLOPS) relative to FP32, a hallmark of Volta’s mixed-precision design. The RX 480 runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32 (5.834 TFLOPS), indicating no special FP16 path.
• Die Size and Transistors: The GV100’s 815 mm² die houses 21,100 million transistors, versus 232 mm² and 5,700 million for the RX 480. The GV100’s die is 3.5 times larger, enabling far more compute resources.
• Release Timing: The GV100 released in March 2018, succeeding Quadro Pascal and preceding Quadro Turing. The RX 480 released in June 2016, succeeding Pirate Islands and preceding Polaris. The GV100 is roughly two years newer.

Where Each One Wins

The GV100 wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004 and Vulkan score of 139,526 are the standout results, placing it far ahead of the RX 480. The 640 tensor cores and 32 GB HBM2 memory make it a candidate for professional visualization, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference, though the data pack does not contain specific tests for those workloads. The GV100’s high pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s) also suggest strength in rendering tasks that demand fill rate.

The RX 480 wins in efficiency and accessibility contexts. Its 150 W TDP is 100 W lower than the GV100’s 250 W, and its 450 W suggested PSU is 150 W less demanding. The RX 480’s 8 GB memory is sufficient for mainstream gaming at its launch, and its Geekbench Metal score of 51,057 indicates macOS compatibility, a test the GV100 does not share. The RX 480 also has a PassMark G2D score of 836 (the GV100’s is 836 as well, a tie), and its DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores (207, 140, 168, 84) are present, whereas the GV100’s PassMark DirectX scores (140, 168, 84, 207) are identical in pattern but higher in some cases—actually, the GV100’s PassMark scores are 140 (DX10), 168 (DX11), 84 (DX12), and 207 (DX9), while the RX 480’s are not listed in the head-to-head, so no comparison is possible for those specific tests.

In practical terms, the GV100 is the pick for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads where the 294.8% and 203.5% deltas translate directly to time savings. The RX 480 is the pick for users who need a low-power, dual-slot card with a smaller footprint (240 mm vs 267 mm) and are willing to accept far lower compute scores. The data shows no scenario where the RX 480 outperforms the GV100 in a shared benchmark, so the choice is between peak performance and lower system requirements.