AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the performance gap between the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Quadro GV100 scores 150,004 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RX Vega M GH scores 27,125. This gives the NVIDIA card a 453% advantage, which is the largest performance delta recorded between the two.

Q: Which GPU has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 has an average benchmark score of 35,520, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH averages 29,197. The Quadro also sits at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 74th percentile for the AMD part.

Q: How do the two compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro GV100 scores 139,526 versus 31,268 for the RX Vega M GH. The NVIDIA part leads by 346.2%, which is still a dominant margin but slightly smaller than the OpenCL gap.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The Quadro GV100 features 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s. The RX Vega M GH has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s. The Quadro has eight times the capacity and roughly four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU uses a larger manufacturing process node?

A: The Quadro GV100 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC, while the RX Vega M GH uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The Quadro also packs 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, versus 5,000 million on 208 mm² for the AMD chip.

Q: What does the database show about the AMD part's nearest rivals?

A: The RX Vega M GH's average score of 29,197 places it within 0.1% of the Intel Arc A370M and exactly 0% from the AMD FirePro W8000. It is also 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, indicating a tight cluster of mid-range performers.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. For users requiring maximum compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro GV100 wins outright. Its 453% lead in OpenCL and 346.2% lead in Vulkan show a generational and architectural chasm between the two.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, however, occupies a different niche. Its 100 W TDP and integrated graphics processor (IGP) form factor suggest a design for compact or portable systems. The Quadro GV100, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring a 600 W power supply and a full-size PCIe slot. The RX Vega M GH never wins a head-to-head test, but its existence makes sense for embedded or mobile scenarios where raw performance is secondary to physical integration.

Buyers who need professional-grade compute, large memory pools, or high-bandwidth rendering should choose the Quadro GV100. Buyers constrained by space or power budgets, and who can tolerate lower scores, would gravitate toward the RX Vega M GH, though the data offers no scenario where the AMD card outperforms the NVIDIA card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head tests, both won decisively by the NVIDIA Quadro GV100. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 150,004 against 27,125 for the RX Vega M GH, a delta of 453%. This means the NVIDIA card delivers over five times the OpenCL throughput. The gap is so large that it dwarfs any other comparison in the entire dataset for these two products.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows slightly but remains enormous. The Quadro GV100 posts 139,526, while the RX Vega M GH manages 31,268. The 346.2% delta still represents a roughly 4.5-fold advantage. Interestingly, the AMD card's Vulkan score is proportionally stronger than its OpenCL score relative to the NVIDIA part, suggesting the GCN architecture handles Vulkan's explicit API more efficiently than OpenCL.

The average benchmark scores confirm this trend. The Quadro's 35,520 average is 21.7% higher than the RX Vega M GH's 29,197, but that average includes only two shared tests. The Quadro also has additional benchmarks in the database (DirectX and PassMark tests) that the AMD card lacks, which inflates its overall record but does not affect the direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on almost every specification. The Quadro GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 ROPs. The RX Vega M GH has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. These counts translate into a pixel rate of 208.3 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 76.16 GPixel/s for the AMD part, and a texture rate of 520.6 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ as well. The Quadro runs at a base of 1132 MHz and boosts to 1627 MHz, while the RX Vega M GH operates at 1063 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor NVIDIA: 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) versus 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS, compared to 3.656 TFLOPS for the AMD chip. FP16 performance further separates them: 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) for NVIDIA versus 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) for AMD.

Form factor is another major difference. The Quadro is dual-slot, 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a single 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX Vega M GH is an IGP with no listed dimensions, no power connectors, and no PSU recommendation. The Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD part's display outputs are described as portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 uses the GV100 chip on the Volta architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It integrates 21,100 million transistors on a 815 mm² die, with a transistor density of 25.9M per mm². Volta also brings 640 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD chip. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH uses the Polaris 22 chip on GCN 4.0 architecture, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, with a density of 24.0M per mm². The GCN design has no tensor cores and supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The lower Vulkan version and missing tensor cores explain some of the performance gap in compute-heavy workloads.

The transistor count difference is stark: 21,100 million versus 5,000 million. The die size difference is equally pronounced: 815 mm² versus 208 mm². Yet the transistor density is similar (25.9M versus 24.0M per mm²), indicating both chips are near their respective process node limits. The Quadro's advantage comes from sheer scale, not packing efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins in every recorded benchmark, so the "where each one wins" section is a matter of degree rather than direction. The Quadro's largest win is OpenCL at 453% ahead, making it the clear choice for compute tasks that rely on OpenCL libraries. Its Vulkan win is also massive at 346.2%, so any Vulkan-based rendering or compute workload still favors NVIDIA.

The RX Vega M GH has no benchmark wins, but its specification profile suggests specific use cases where it could be preferable despite losing. Its 100 W TDP is 60% lower than the Quadro's 250 W, which matters for thermally constrained systems. Its IGP form factor means it can be soldered onto a motherboard or integrated into a compact device, whereas the Quadro requires a full PCIe slot and dual-slot cooling.

The AMD card's memory configuration, while smaller, still uses HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus. This gives it 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is respectable for a 100 W part. The Quadro's 868.4 GB/s is more than four times higher, but the RX Vega M GH's bandwidth per watt is actually favorable: 2.05 GB/s per watt versus 3.47 GB/s per watt for the Quadro, though the Quadro still leads on absolute efficiency.

For software compatibility, the RX Vega M GH supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro supports 12_1, which includes additional features like conservative rasterization. The AMD card also has Vulkan 1.3 support versus 1.4 for NVIDIA, meaning newer Vulkan extensions may not be available on the AMD part. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores, so any ray tracing workload would fall back to compute shaders on both.

The Quadro's tensor cores are the defining architectural difference. These 640 cores enable FP16 operations at twice the FP32 rate, which the benchmark data confirms with 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 versus 16.66 TFLOPS FP32. The RX Vega M GH has no tensor cores and runs FP16 at the same rate as FP32 (3.656 TFLOPS). For machine learning inference or training, the Quadro is the only viable option between these two.