AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two direct head-to-head comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 480 and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000, and both are decisive victories for the NVIDIA card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 101,883 against the RX 480's 37,998, a margin of 62.7%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 8000 reaches 122,637 while the RX 480 manages 45,968, a 62.5% gap. These are not close contests; the Quadro RTX 8000 roughly triples the Radeon's output in both API tests.

The RX 480 does have its own benchmark data beyond the head-to-head set. Its Geekbench Metal score is 51,057, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 966. However, the Quadro RTX 8000 has no corresponding Metal or Steel Nomad entry, so cross-comparison in those workloads is impossible from the database. The only shared tests are OpenCL and Vulkan, and the outcome is identical in both.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the RX 480 posts 33,997 across its recorded tests, while the Quadro RTX 8000 averages 28,421. This is an interesting inversion: the RX 480 has a higher average score despite losing both head-to-head matchups. The explanation lies in the test sets. The RX 480's average is built from four compute-oriented benchmarks (3DMark, Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), all of which are relatively strong for it. The Quadro RTX 8000's average includes several Passmark legacy DX tests where it scores very low: Passmark DirectX 9 at 211, DirectX 10 at 137, DirectX 11 at 188, and DirectX 12 at 79. These drag its average down despite a strong Passmark G3D score of 19,799 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 9,992.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story of divergence. The RX 480 sits at the 78th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 8000 is at the 74th. The nearest rivals in the database reinforce this positioning. The RX 480's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT, which scores 34,133, a delta of 0.4% below the RX 480's 33,997. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is just 0.5% ahead at 34,154. The Quadro RTX 8000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570 at 28,766 (1.2% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28,020 (1.4% behind).

So the data presents a paradox: the Quadro RTX 8000 crushes the RX 480 in the two tests they share, yet its overall database average and percentile rank are lower. This is a consequence of the Quadro's uneven benchmark profile. In modern compute APIs it is far ahead, but in legacy DirectX tests it underperforms dramatically. The RX 480 is more consistent across its measured workloads, which lifts its aggregate standing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different design philosophies. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It belongs to the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation and packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It is part of the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation and contains 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, a density of 24.7 million per square millimeter. The density figures are nearly identical, but the Quadro's die is more than three times larger.

The compute resources differ enormously. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Each of these is exactly double the RX 480's count, except the ROPs, which are triple. The Quadro also brings hardware that the RX 480 lacks entirely: 72 RT cores for ray tracing and 576 tensor cores for AI workloads. The RX 480 has no RT cores and no tensor cores, reflecting its GCN 4.0 design from a pre-ray-tracing era.

Clock speeds favor the Quadro as well. The RX 480 runs at a base clock of 1120 MHz and a boost of 1266 MHz. The Quadro RTX 8000 runs at 1395 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 480 uses 2000 MHz memory with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the Quadro uses 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The memory subsystem is a major separation point. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s.

Theoretical throughput numbers amplify the gap. The RX 480 produces 40.51 GPixel/s and 182.3 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 5.834 TFLOPS and FP16 also at 5.834 TFLOPS (a 1:1 ratio). The Quadro RTX 8000 produces 169.9 GPixel/s and 509.8 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 16.31 TFLOPS and FP16 at 32.62 TFLOPS (a 2:1 ratio). In FP32, the Quadro is roughly 2.8 times faster. In FP16, it is about 5.6 times faster.

API support also differs. The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro RTX 8000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12_2 feature level on the Quadro reflects its newer architecture and enables features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, which the RX 480 cannot access.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 wins decisively with a score of 101,883 versus 37,998 for the AMD Radeon RX 480, a 62.7% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro RTX 8000 in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 122,637 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RX 480 scores 45,968. The Quadro leads by 62.5%.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 480 have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The RX 480 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores.

Q: Why does the RX 480 have a higher average benchmark score than the Quadro RTX 8000?

A: The RX 480 averages 33,997 across its tests, while the Quadro averages 28,421. The Quadro's average is pulled down by low Passmark DirectX scores, including 79 in DirectX 12 and 137 in DirectX 10, despite its strong OpenCL and Vulkan results.

Q: What are the transistor densities of the two chips?

A: They are nearly identical. The RX 480 has 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter, and the Quadro RTX 8000 has 24.7 million. However, the Quadro's die is 754 mm² versus 232 mm² for the RX 480.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 480 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries; the Quadro RTX 8000 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC. The RX 480 has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die; the Quadro has 18,600 million on 754 mm². The RX 480's base clock is 1120 MHz and boost is 1266 MHz; the Quadro's base is 1395 MHz and boost is 1770 MHz. Memory speed is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) on the RX 480 versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the Quadro.

Memory capacity is 8 GB GDDR5 for the RX 480 versus 48 GB GDDR6 for the Quadro. Bus width is 256-bit versus 384-bit. Bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s. Shading units are 2,304 versus 4,608. TMUs are 144 versus 288. ROPs are 32 versus 96. The Quadro adds 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores; the RX 480 has none. Pixel rate is 40.51 GPixel/s versus 169.9 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 182.3 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 5.834 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS. FP16 is 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 150 W for the RX 480 versus 260 W for the Quadro. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 450 W versus 600 W. Both are dual-slot cards with PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. Display outputs differ: the RX 480 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a; the Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. Physical dimensions differ: the RX 480 is 240 mm long, 95 mm tall, and 35 mm wide; the Quadro is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with no recorded width. DirectX support is 12 (12_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan support is 1.3 versus 1.4. OpenGL is 4.6 for both.

Release dates differ substantially. The RX 480 was released on 2016-06-28; the Quadro RTX 8000 on 2018-08-12. Both are end-of-life. The RX 480's predecessor is Pirate Islands and its successor is Polaris. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The launch MSRP is 229 USD for the RX 480 and 9,999 USD for the Quadro RTX 8000.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in raw performance: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is the far faster GPU in the two shared benchmarks, with a 62.7% lead in OpenCL and a 62.5% lead in Vulkan. It also has 6 times the memory, 2.6 times the bandwidth, double the shading units, triple the ROPs, and hardware ray tracing and tensor cores that the RX 480 does not have at all. Its FP32 throughput is 2.8 times higher, and its FP16 throughput is 5.6 times higher.

The RX 480's only aggregate advantage is its average benchmark score of 33,997 versus 28,421, and its 78th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 74th. That advantage stems from the Quadro's poor legacy DirectX scores in the database, not from any head-to-head win. In the tests where both cards appear, the Quadro wins by wide margins.

The launch MSRP difference is stark: 229 USD for the RX 480 versus 9,999 USD for the Quadro RTX 8000. The Quadro is a workstation card designed for compute-heavy, memory-hungry, and AI-accelerated workloads. The RX 480 is a consumer card from an earlier generation. The data suggests they were never intended to compete in the same market segment, and the benchmark results confirm that the Quadro is in a different performance class.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins in every direct comparison available. It dominates OpenCL and Vulkan compute, which are the two tests the database records for both cards. Its 48 GB memory capacity and 672.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for massive datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 576 tensor cores and 72 RT cores enable AI inference and ray-traced rendering workloads that the RX 480 cannot accelerate in hardware. Its FP16 throughput of 32.62 TFLOPS, double its FP32 rate, suggests strong performance in mixed-precision compute tasks.

The RX 480 wins in the aggregate scoring metrics. Its average benchmark score of 33,997 exceeds the Quadro's 28,421 by a meaningful margin, and it ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile at 78 versus 74. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly around it: the RX 560 XT is 0.4% behind, the RTX A2000 12 GB is 0.5% ahead, and the HD 7950 is 0.1% behind. This indicates the RX 480 is a well-balanced card for its generation, performing consistently across its recorded benchmarks. Its 150 W TDP and single 6-pin connector, versus the Quadro's 260 W and dual connectors, also make it the more power-efficient option in the database's terms.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the Quadro's Passmark scores are weak, with DirectX 9 at 211, DirectX 10 at 137, DirectX 11 at 188, and DirectX 12 at 79. The RX 480 has no Passmark entries in the database, so a direct comparison there is unavailable. But the Quadro's low legacy scores explain why its average trails despite its compute strength. Users running older DirectX applications might find the Quadro underwhelming, while those running modern compute APIs will see it excel.

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on workload. For compute-heavy, memory-intensive, or ray-tracing and AI tasks, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the clear pick from the recorded data. For a balanced consumer GPU with a higher aggregate benchmark standing and lower power draw, the RX 480 holds its own. The database shows two very different tools designed for very different jobs, and the benchmark results reflect that separation clearly.