AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 represent two very different approaches to high-end graphics hardware, separated by roughly seven months in release timing and aimed at distinct workloads. The data shows that while both cards occupy similar positions in the overall performance percentile ranking—81st for the AMD part and 80th for the NVIDIA part—their benchmark profiles and architectural resources diverge sharply, making direct comparison a study in specialization rather than a simple speed contest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Because no shared benchmark tests appear in the data for these two cards, the comparison must be drawn from their respective benchmark suites and aggregate scores. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 posts an average benchmark score of 37,507, while the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 averages 35,520—a difference of approximately 5.6% in favor of the AMD card in this aggregate metric. This is a modest lead, and the nearest-rival data places each card within similar competitive bands. The Vega 56 sits just 0.3% below the NVIDIA Tesla P4 and 0.4% below the GeForce RTX 4070, while edging out the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 by 0.9%. The Quadro GV100, meanwhile, trails the NVIDIA T1000 by 2.1% and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo by 0.9%, while leading the NVIDIA A2 by 2.4% and the RTX 5070 Ti Mobile by 0.2%.

Looking at individual tests, the Vega 56's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 indicates a solid DirectX 12 rasterization result, though no comparative rival score is provided for that test. The Geekbench Metal score of 73,512 for the Vega 56 is substantial, reflecting strong compute throughput on Apple's API. The Quadro GV100 counters with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004—more than double the Vega 56's Metal score, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable. The GV100 also shows a Geekbench Vulkan score of 139,526, demonstrating robust cross-platform compute. In legacy DirectX tests, the GV100 posts Passmark scores of 140 (DX10), 168 (DX11), 84 (DX12), and 207 (DX9), with a Passmark G3D score of 19,650 and a GPU compute score of 9,069. The Passmark G2D score of 836 suggests moderate 2D performance, which is less critical for gaming but relevant for professional desktop workloads.

The aggregate picture is that the Vega 56 holds a slight edge in average benchmark score, but the GV100's individual compute-heavy tests show far higher raw throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan. The deltaPct against nearest rivals suggests that the Vega 56 is more tightly clustered with its competitors, while the GV100 shows slightly wider variance—2.4% ahead of the A2 but 2.1% behind the T1000. This indicates that the Quadro GV100's performance is more workload-dependent, excelling in some tests while falling behind in others.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100, by contrast, uses the GV100 chip on Volta architecture, built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. Its die is significantly larger at 815 mm² and packs 21,100 million transistors, achieving a density of 25.9 million per square millimeter—a slightly higher density despite the older process node.

Memory configurations differ radically. The Vega 56 carries 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The GV100 offers 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s—more than double the bandwidth and four times the capacity. This makes the GV100 far better suited for large datasets in professional visualization and scientific computing. Clock speeds are closer: the Vega 56 runs at a 1156 MHz base and 1471 MHz boost, while the GV100 runs at 1132 MHz base and 1627 MHz boost, giving the NVIDIA card a higher boost ceiling.

Compute resources follow the memory disparity. The Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs—roughly 43% more shaders, 43% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. The GV100 also integrates 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Vega 56, which is critical for AI and deep learning workloads. Pixel rate for the GV100 is 208.3 GPixel/s versus 94.14 GPixel/s for the Vega 56, and texture rate is 520.6 GTexel/s versus 329.5 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance shows the GV100 at 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16, while the Vega 56 delivers 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.09 TFLOPS FP16.

Power and physical specifications also differ: the Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP with dual 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU, while the GV100 draws 250 W with a single 8-pin connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The Vega 56 is longer at 280 mm versus 267 mm for the GV100, but both are dual-slot cards with identical 111 mm height. The Vega 56 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GV100 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a with no HDMI. API support is nearly identical, with both supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GV100 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 56 is limited to Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice between these two cards depends entirely on workload profile. If the priority is raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro GV100 is the clear winner—its Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004 dwarfs the Vega 56's Geekbench Metal score of 73,512, and the GV100's FP32 throughput of 16.66 TFLOPS is 58% higher than the Vega 56's 10.54 TFLOPS. For memory-intensive tasks, the GV100's 32 GB capacity and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth are in a completely different class than the Vega 56's 8 GB and 409.6 GB/s. The inclusion of 640 tensor cores further tilts the balance toward the GV100 for any AI-related compute.

However, the aggregate benchmark score favors the Vega 56 at 37,507 versus 35,520, suggesting that in general-purpose or gaming-oriented workloads, the AMD card holds a slight advantage. The Vega 56's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 indicates competent DirectX 12 rasterization, and its lower TDP of 210 W versus 250 W means less power draw. The Vega 56 also has the advantage of HDMI output, which the GV100 lacks entirely. For a user prioritizing gaming or general graphics with a modest power budget, the Vega 56 is the more balanced choice. For professional compute, large memory footprints, or tensor-based workloads, the GV100 is the only option that fits.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 has an average benchmark score of 37,507, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro GV100's 35,520—a difference of roughly 5.6% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what is the bandwidth?

A: The Vega 56 has 8 GB of HBM2 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth on a 2048-bit bus. The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth on a 4096-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro GV100 support tensor operations?

A: Yes, the GV100 includes 640 tensor cores, which are absent from the Vega 56. This makes the GV100 suitable for deep learning and AI workloads.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card?

A: The Vega 56 delivers 10.54 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro GV100 delivers 16.66 TFLOPS FP32—the NVIDIA card is 58% higher in this metric.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan 1.4?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 is limited to Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the power connector requirements?

A: The Vega 56 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors with a 210 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. The GV100 requires a single 8-pin connector with a 250 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 wins in aggregate benchmark scoring, posting 37,507 against the GV100's 35,520, and it also has a higher percentile ranking at 81 versus 80. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 and Geekbench Metal score of 73,512 indicate strength in DirectX 12 gaming and Apple ecosystem compute. The Vega 56 is the lighter card in power draw at 210 W versus 250 W, and it includes HDMI output, which the GV100 lacks. Its smaller physical footprint—280 mm length versus 267 mm for the GV100—makes it easier to fit in some chassis, though the difference is minor.

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins decisively in memory capacity, bandwidth, and compute throughput. Its 32 GB of HBM2 is four times the Vega 56's 8 GB, and its 868.4 GB/s bandwidth is 112% higher. The GV100's 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs all exceed the Vega 56's respective counts, leading to a pixel rate of 208.3 GPixel/s versus 94.14 GPixel/s. The addition of 640 tensor cores provides a capability the Vega 56 cannot match. The GV100's Geekbench OpenCL score of 150,004 and Vulkan score of 139,526 show exceptional compute performance on open standards. Its 1.4 Vulkan support is newer than the Vega 56's 1.3, and its 12 nm TSMC process, while older in node name, achieves higher transistor density at 25.9M per mm² versus 25.3M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The Vega 56 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, while the GV100 uses a 12 nm process at TSMC with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² for AMD versus 25.9M per mm² for NVIDIA. Clock speeds show the GV100 boosting higher at 1627 MHz versus 1471 MHz, though the base clocks are similar at 1132 MHz versus 1156 MHz. Memory is the largest gap: 8 GB versus 32 GB, 2048-bit versus 4096-bit bus, and 409.6 GB/s versus 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, while the Vega 56 has 3,584, 224, and 64 respectively. The GV100 adds 640 tensor cores; the Vega 56 has none. Pixel rate is 208.3 GPixel/s versus 94.14 GPixel/s, texture rate is 520.6 GTexel/s versus 329.5 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 10.54 TFLOPS. FP16 is 33.32 TFLOPS versus 21.09 TFLOPS. TDP is 250 W versus 210 W, power connectors are 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin, and suggested PSU is 600 W versus 550 W. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.3. The GV100 is shorter at 267 mm versus 280 mm, and both are dual-slot with 111 mm height. The Vega 56 has a 40 mm width, while the GV100's width is not listed.