AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 and AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics hardware, serving distinct segments of the market despite their close average benchmark scores. The data shows a desktop workstation GPU with massive compute resources facing an integrated mobile processor component with a fraction of the silicon budget. While the Quadro RTX 5000 delivers dominant raw performance in the available head-to-head tests, the Vega M GL’s efficiency metrics and form factor reveal a design optimized for portability rather than peak throughput. The following analysis breaks down the architectural, specification, and benchmark differences between these two end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 than the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 304.1% higher than the Vega M GL’s 19,549, representing a roughly four-fold performance advantage.

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

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 has an average benchmark score of 21,629, while the Vega M GL averages 21,153, a margin of only 2.3% according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density despite being on an older process node?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process, achieves 25.0M transistors per mm², slightly higher than the AMD Vega M GL’s 24.0M per mm² on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm node.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL support real-time ray tracing?

A: No. The Vega M GL has no RT cores and its architecture is GCN 4.0, whereas the Quadro RTX 5000 includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores as part of its Turing architecture.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 features 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega M GL has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 sits at the 67th percentile, while the Vega M GL sits at the 66th percentile, a difference of just one percentile point despite their vast architectural disparities.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is built on the Turing architecture using the TU104 chip, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This architecture introduces dedicated hardware for ray tracing and AI acceleration, with the GPU containing 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores. The Vega M GL, by contrast, employs AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 22 chip, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. GCN 4.0 lacks dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware entirely, as reflected in the null entries for those fields in the specification data.

The transistor and die size disparity is substantial. The TU104 packs 13,600 million transistors into a 545 mm² die, while the Polaris 22 contains just 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. This means the Quadro RTX 5000 has 2.72 times more transistors and a 2.62 times larger physical footprint. The transistor density, however, is nearly identical: 25.0M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 24.0M per mm² for AMD, indicating similar manufacturing efficiency despite the different process nodes.

Shading resources follow the same pattern of divergence. The Quadro RTX 5000 includes 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Vega M GL has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In every compute category, the NVIDIA part offers roughly 2.4 times the resources, which directly translates into the pixel rate of 116.2 GPixel/s versus 32.35 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 348.5 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput tells a similar story: 11.15 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 2.588 TFLOPS for AMD.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. NVIDIA uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. AMD uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, achieving 179.2 GB/s. The HBM2 implementation offers a wider bus but lower effective speed and total capacity. Notably, the Vega M GL’s FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 2.588 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the Quadro RTX 5000 doubles its FP16 to 22.30 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, leveraging tensor cores for accelerated half-precision workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins decisively in every measurable performance category from the provided data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it achieves 78,999 versus 19,549, a 304.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin is nearly identical at 305.6%, with scores of 92,309 versus 22,757. These results indicate that for any compute-intensive workload, whether general-purpose OpenCL or graphics-oriented Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the clear choice.

The Quadro RTX 5000’s 16 GB GDDR6 memory capacity and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures, while its 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores enable ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated tasks that the Vega M GL cannot perform at all. The NVIDIA card’s dual-slot design with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors and 230 W TDP indicates it is designed for desktop workstations with dedicated power delivery.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL wins in efficiency and physical integration. With a 65 W TDP and IGP slot width, it consumes only 28.3% of the power of the Quadro RTX 5000. Its IGP bus interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs indicate it is designed for laptops and compact systems where space and thermal limits are paramount. The Vega M GL’s 4 GB HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus provides a unique bandwidth-per-pin advantage, though total bandwidth remains lower. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio means consistent performance across precision levels without specialized hardware.

For users requiring maximum compute throughput, the Quadro RTX 5000 is the only option between these two. For users prioritizing power efficiency and size-constrained designs, the Vega M GL offers a viable integrated solution, though benchmark results show it operates at a fraction of the NVIDIA part’s performance level.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: NVIDIA uses 12 nm TSMC, while AMD uses 14 nm GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 13,600 million for NVIDIA versus 5,000 million for AMD, with die sizes of 545 mm² and 208 mm² respectively. Transistor density is nearly equal at 25.0M per mm² versus 24.0M per mm².

Clock speeds show NVIDIA operating at 1620 MHz base and 1815 MHz boost, while AMD runs at 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: NVIDIA’s GDDR6 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, while AMD’s HBM2 runs at 700 MHz with 1400 Mbps effective. Memory capacity is 16 GB versus 4 GB, with bus widths of 256-bit versus 1024-bit, yielding bandwidths of 448.0 GB/s versus 179.2 GB/s.

Compute resources differ across all categories: shading units 3,072 versus 1,280, TMUs 192 versus 80, ROPs 64 versus 32. Only NVIDIA has RT cores (48) and tensor cores (384). Pixel rates are 116.2 GPixel/s versus 32.35 GPixel/s, texture rates 348.5 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance 11.15 TFLOPS versus 2.588 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 22.30 TFLOPS with 2:1 ratio for NVIDIA, versus 2.588 TFLOPS with 1:1 ratio for AMD.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply: TDP is 230 W versus 65 W, slot width is dual-slot versus IGP, and power connectors are 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin versus none. The NVIDIA card has a suggested PSU of 550 W; AMD has none listed. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus IGP for AMD. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C for NVIDIA, versus portable-device-dependent for AMD. NVIDIA dimensions are 267 mm length and 111 mm height; AMD has no listed dimensions. API support differs: NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are 2018-08-12 for NVIDIA and 2018-01-31 for AMD. The Quadro RTX 5000 has a launch MSRP of 2,299 USD; the Vega M GL has no listed MSRP. NVIDIA’s predecessor is Quadro Volta and successor is Workstation Ampere; AMD lists no predecessor or successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two benchmark tests, both of which the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 against the Vega M GL’s 19,549, a delta of 304.1%. This means the NVIDIA card delivers more than four times the OpenCL compute performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309 against 22,757, a delta of 305.6%, maintaining the same approximate four-fold advantage.

These results align with the specification disparities. The Quadro RTX 5000’s FP32 throughput of 11.15 TFLOPS is 4.31 times the Vega M GL’s 2.588 TFLOPS, closely matching the observed benchmark deltas. The NVIDIA card’s texture rate of 348.5 GTexel/s is 4.31 times the AMD part’s 80.88 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 116.2 GPixel/s is 3.59 times higher. The memory bandwidth advantage is 2.5 times in favor of NVIDIA, though the wider 1024-bit bus on AMD partially compensates in specific access patterns.

The wins tally shows 2 wins for the Quadro RTX 5000 and 0 for the Vega M GL across the tested benchmarks. In the broader context of the nearestRivals data, the Quadro RTX 5000’s average score of 21,629 places it 2.3% above the Vega M GL’s 21,153, despite the individual test results showing a much larger gap. This discrepancy suggests the average benchmark score incorporates additional tests not present in the head-to-head comparison, where the Vega M GL may perform relatively better. The percentile rankings support this: both GPUs sit within one percentile point of each other (67th versus 66th), indicating that in the full benchmark suite, these products land in similar overall performance tiers despite the Quadro RTX 5000’s dominance in compute-heavy workloads.