AMD Radeon RX 7700S vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S occupy almost opposite ends of the GPU landscape, yet the database places them closer together than intuition suggests: the mobile Radeon averages a benchmark score of 33849 against the workstation Quadro's 28421, sitting in the 78th percentile of all recorded GPUs versus the Quadro's 74th percentile. Those aggregate numbers, however, hide a sharply split picture. The Quadro dominates the compute- and API-oriented tests outright, while the Radeon's aggregate standing rests on a different benchmark mix and a far newer architecture. This comparison walks through the recorded results, separates the wins, and clarifies who each card is actually for.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests exist in the database for both cards, and the Quadro RTX 8000 wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 8000 scored 101883 against the Radeon RX 7700S's 62983. That is a gap of roughly 39000 points, meaning the Quadro delivers about 62 percent more performance in this general-purpose compute workload. OpenCL rewards raw shader throughput, wide memory bandwidth, and mature driver optimization, and the Quadro holds advantages in all three areas: 4608 shading units against 2048, and 672.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth against 288.0 GB/s.

Geekbench Vulkan is even more lopsided. The Quadro posted 122637 while the Radeon managed 36380, a difference so large that the Quadro's score is more than three times the Radeon's, leaving the RX 7700S roughly 70 percent behind. A gap of that magnitude in a modern graphics API test is unusual between cards in adjacent percentile bands, and it points to workload composition rather than pure gaming capability: the Quadro's 576 tensor cores and its sheer parallel width carry it through compute-heavy Vulkan paths that a mobile power envelope cannot match.

Context from each card's rival set sharpens the picture. The RX 7700S's average score of 33849 sits within a fraction of a percent of cards like the AMD Radeon HD 7950 (33951 average) and the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33997 average), and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB (33694) and the NVIDIA RTX A5000's recorded average in that cluster (33622). The Quadro's 28421 average places it near the AMD Radeon R9 M295X (28580), the AMD Radeon RX 570 (28766), the AMD FirePro S7150 (28117), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28020). On raw averages, the Radeon leads by a hair over 5000 points, roughly 18 percent, but the head-to-head record is two wins to zero in favor of the Quadro, and that direct evidence carries more weight than the blended averages.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins wherever the workload behaves like professional compute. Its Geekbench scores, its PassMark GPU compute result of 9992, and its substantial PassMark G3D score of 19799 all reflect a card designed for sustained throughput: rendering, simulation, and memory-hungry professional tasks. The 48 GB of GDDR6 is the single most decisive spec here, six times the Radeon's 8 GB, and it enables datasets and scenes that simply cannot fit on the mobile part. Workloads that spill beyond 8 GB do not slow down on the Radeon, they fail to run at all. For those users the Quadro is the only viable option of the two, regardless of any benchmark score.

The Radeon RX 7700S wins on efficiency, feature currency, and longevity of platform. Its 100 W TDP against the Quadro's 260 W means it delivers its performance from a fraction of the power envelope, with no power connectors required, while the Quadro needs a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin arrangement and a suggested 600 W PSU. The Radeon is an integrated/mobile-format part with portable-device-dependent outputs; the Quadro is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. In thermally constrained or portable systems, the Radeon is the practical choice by design. It also remains in active production, whereas the Quadro is end-of-life, superseded by workstation Ampere. Anyone buying new hardware today is choosing between a current part and a discontinued one.

The Radeon also holds a raw shading advantage on paper: 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 against the Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS, thanks to much higher clocks (2500 MHz boost versus 1770 MHz). The database does not record a modern gaming head-to-head between them, so no gaming verdict can be drawn beyond noting the Radeon's higher percentile standing and newer API support.

Architecture Differences

These two cards come from different eras and different philosophies. The Radeon RX 7700S is built on the Navi 33 chip, RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish", manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. The Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on Turing, built on TSMC's 12 nm process. The generational gap shows in density: the Radeon packs 13,300 million transistors into 204 mm², or 65.2 million per square millimeter, while the Quadro spreads 18,600 million transistors across 754 mm² for just 24.7 million per square millimeter. The Radeon's die is about a quarter the area yet achieves more than double the transistor density.

Core counts favor the Quadro in absolute terms. It carries 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The Radeon counters with 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores, and it has no dedicated tensor cores listed in the database. Clocks run the other way: the Radeon's 1500 MHz base and 2500 MHz boost (with a 2200 MHz game clock) tower over the Quadro's 1395 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. That clock advantage is why the Radeon's theoretical FP32 throughput of 20.48 TFLOPS beats the Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS despite having fewer than half the shading units.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Quadro pairs 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus at 14 Gbps effective for 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 18 Gbps effective for 288.0 GB/s. Bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 on the Radeon versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the Quadro. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro's display output is fixed at four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus one USB Type-C; the Radeon's outputs depend on the portable device it inhabits.

Release timing frames the comparison: the Quadro RTX 8000 launched in August 2018 with a launch MSRP of 9,999 USD; the RX 7700S arrived in January 2023 with no MSRP recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clean split. Choose the Quadro RTX 8000 if the workload is professional compute or large-dataset work: the OpenCL and Vulkan results, the 48 GB buffer, and 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth are unmatched here, and the two recorded head-to-head wins belong to it. Its weaknesses are equally clear: it is end-of-life, power hungry, and its average benchmark score trails the Radeon's in the database.

Choose the RX 7700S for mobile and efficiency-driven use. It delivers a higher aggregate standing (78th percentile versus 74th, and an average score of 33849 versus 28421) from a 100 W envelope, on a newer 6 nm process, with newer PCIe connectivity, active production status, and higher theoretical FP32 throughput. Its 8 GB buffer and its heavy defeats in the shared compute tests disqualify it from the Quadro's professional territory. Neither card is the better purchase in the abstract; the workload decides.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the shared benchmarks? A: The Quadro RTX 8000 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. It scored 101883 versus 62983 in Geekbench OpenCL (about 62 percent higher) and 122637 versus 36380 in Geekbench Vulkan (more than three times the Radeon's score).

Q: How much memory does each card have? A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power efficient? A: The RX 7700S, by design. It has a 100 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro has a 260 W TDP, needs a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector, and carries a suggested 600 W PSU rating.

Q: Which architecture is newer? A: The RX 7700S uses RDNA 3.0 on the Navi 33 chip at 6 nm, launched in January 2023. The Quadro uses Turing on TU102 at 12 nm, launched in August 2018, and is now end-of-life.

Q: Which card has higher theoretical shading performance? A: The RX 7700S, at 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 versus the Quadro's 16.31 TFLOPS, driven by its 2500 MHz boost clock against the Quadro's 1770 MHz.

Q: Can the Quadro still be bought new? A: No. Its production status is end-of-life, with workstation Ampere listed as its successor. The RX 7700S remains in active production.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7700S | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | TU102 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Turing |

| Codename | Hotpink Bonefish | Not listed |

| Generation | Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) | Quadro Turing (Tx000) |

| Process node | 6 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 18,600 million |

| Die size | 204 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor density | 65.2M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1500 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2500 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Game clock | 2200 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 48 GB |

| Bus width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Effective memory speed | 18 Gbps | 14 Gbps |

| Shading units | 2048 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 128 | 288 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT cores | 32 | 72 |

| Tensor cores | None listed | 576 |

| Pixel rate | 160.0 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 320.0 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 20.48 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 260 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 600 W |

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

| Display outputs | Portable device dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Length | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 in) |

| Height | Not listed | 111 mm (4.4 in) |

| Release date | January 2023 | August 2018 |

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

| Successor | None listed | Workstation Ampere |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 9,999 USD |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 78th | 74th |

| Average benchmark score | 33849 | 28421 |