AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile represent two vastly different approaches to graphics processing, separated by nearly eight years of technology evolution. The Quadro 5000 is a professional workstation card from 2011, built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture with a massive 40 nm die, while the Vega 8 Mobile is a 2019 integrated graphics processor designed for laptops, built on AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture at 14 nm. Despite their differences in pedigree and purpose, benchmark data shows they land remarkably close in raw compute performance, with the Vega 8 Mobile edging ahead by a slim margin in OpenCL workloads. This comparison investigates what happens when a legacy professional GPU meets a modern integrated solution, and what the data reveals about architectural efficiency versus raw hardware investment.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, scoring 7,435 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7,289, a delta of -2% from the Quadro's perspective. This represents a 2% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 5000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, which scores 7,222, placing the Quadro 0.9% ahead. The Vega 8 Mobile's closest competitor is also the GTX 750 at 7,222, but here the AMD part trails by 0.3%. Both GPUs sit within a tight 1.7% band of four rival GPUs.

Q: What are the memory configurations for each GPU?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile uses System Shared memory, with the bus width also listed as System Shared and bandwidth described as System Dependent, meaning it relies on the host system's RAM.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and density?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile has 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding a density of 23.5M / mm². The Quadro 5000 has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving it a much lower density of 5.9M / mm². The AMD chip packs roughly 59% more transistors into less than half the die area.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W and requires a 450 W suggested power supply with a single 6-pin connector. The Vega 8 Mobile has a TDP of just 25 W, uses no power connectors, and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics API versions?

A: The Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This gives the AMD part a significant API advantage, particularly for Vulkan-based workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release eras and design philosophies. The Quadro 5000 is built on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process node. It uses the GF100 chip, which packs 3,100 million transistors onto a massive 529 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of just 5.9M / mm², a figure that seems primitive by modern standards but was typical for high-end GPUs of its time. The Fermi architecture was designed for compute-heavy professional workloads, and the Quadro 5000's specifications reflect that focus.

In contrast, the Vega 8 Mobile uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture, specifically the Raven-M chip, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The die size is 210 mm², less than half the Quadro's footprint, yet it contains 4,940 million transistors. This yields a density of 23.5M / mm², roughly four times higher than the Fermi part. The GCN architecture was designed with efficiency in mind, and the Vega 8 Mobile's integrated nature means it shares the die with CPU components, though the chip itself is labeled Raven-M.

The compute resources differ fundamentally. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 40 raster output units (ROPs). The Vega 8 Mobile has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The AMD part has more shading units but fewer TMUs and dramatically fewer ROPs, which explains why its pixel rate is lower at 8.808 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 11.29 GPixel/s. However, the Vega 8 Mobile's texture rate of 35.23 GTexel/s is significantly higher than the Quadro's 22.57 GTexel/s, indicating better texture processing throughput despite fewer TMUs.

Clock speeds tell another story. The Quadro 5000's memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the Vega 8 Mobile has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1,101 MHz. The Fermi part's architecture relies on dedicated memory bandwidth, while the Vega 8 Mobile's system-shared memory approach means its performance is highly dependent on the host system's RAM speed and configuration. The FP32 compute figures highlight the efficiency difference: the Vega 8 Mobile achieves 1,127.4 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 5000 manages 722.3 GFLOPS. The AMD part also supports FP16 with 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the Fermi architecture lacks entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark recorded in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a surprisingly close result. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile scores 7,435, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The delta percentage is -2% from the Quadro's perspective, meaning the AMD part is 2% faster. This margin is small enough that it could be considered within run-to-run variance, but the data consistently shows the modern integrated GPU outperforming the legacy workstation card.

What makes this result notable is the context of their respective standings. The Quadro 5000 holds a 40th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Vega 8 Mobile sits at 39th percentile. Despite the percentile difference favoring the Quadro, the actual benchmark scores show the AMD part ahead. Both GPUs cluster tightly with their rivals: the Quadro is 0.9% ahead of the GTX 750, 1.2% ahead of the Vega 8 Mobile, 1.6% ahead of the GTX 560 SE, and 1.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580. The Vega 8 Mobile's rival list shows it trailing the GTX 750 by 0.3%, but leading the GTX 560 SE by 0.4%, the Iris Pro P580 by 0.5%, and the GTX 970 by 0.6%.

The fact that a 2011 professional card with 152 W TDP and dedicated GDDR5 memory only manages to edge past a 25 W integrated GPU in some comparisons, while losing in the direct head-to-head, speaks volumes about architectural progress. The Vega 8 Mobile achieves its 7,435 score using system-shared memory, which is typically slower than dedicated VRAM, yet still outperforms the Quadro's dedicated 120.0 GB/s bandwidth setup. The benchmark results suggest that modern GPU architectures have become significantly more efficient at extracting performance from available resources, even when those resources are shared with the CPU.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal fundamental differences in nearly every category. The process node differs dramatically: the Quadro 5000 uses 40 nm TSMC fabrication, while the Vega 8 Mobile uses 14 nm GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 3,100 million versus 4,940 million, with die sizes of 529 mm² versus 210 mm², and densities of 5.9M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm² respectively.

Memory configurations are entirely different in kind. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 Mobile has System Shared memory, with System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth. The clock specifications also differ: the Quadro lists only a memory clock of 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the Vega 8 Mobile lists a 300 MHz base clock and 1,101 MHz boost clock.

The compute unit counts diverge: 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs for the Quadro versus 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the Vega 8 Mobile. Pixel rates are 11.29 GPixel/s versus 8.808 GPixel/s, while texture rates are 22.57 GTexel/s versus 35.23 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 722.3 GFLOPS versus 1,127.4 GFLOPS, and the Vega 8 Mobile adds FP16 capability at 2.255 TFLOPS (2:1) that the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and physical specifications are perhaps the starkest contrast. The Quadro 5000 demands 152 W TDP, a 450 W suggested PSU, a 6-pin power connector, and a dual-slot form factor with 248 mm length and 111 mm height. The Vega 8 Mobile is an IGP with 25 W TDP, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and no listed dimensions. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, while the Vega 8 Mobile's interface is simply "IGP" and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

API support differs in DirectX versions: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Vega 8 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but only the Vega 8 Mobile lists Vulkan 1.3. Release dates are February 22, 2011 for the Quadro and January 7, 2019 for the Vega 8 Mobile. The Quadro had a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the Vega 8 Mobile has no MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile is the more capable GPU in raw OpenCL performance, winning the head-to-head benchmark with a 7,435 score versus the Quadro 5000's 7,289. This 2% advantage comes despite the AMD part using system-shared memory and consuming just 25 W compared to the Quadro's 152 W. The Vega 8 Mobile also supports newer API features, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support.

However, the Quadro 5000 is not without its strengths. It holds a 40th percentile ranking versus the Vega 8 Mobile's 39th percentile, and it offers dedicated memory with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, which could provide more consistent performance in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s is 28% higher than the Vega 8 Mobile's 8.808 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate performance for certain rendering tasks. The Quadro also has 40 ROPs versus 8, which can benefit specific graphics operations.

For users choosing between these two, the decision comes down to context. The Vega 8 Mobile is an integrated solution designed for portable devices, and its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for systems where power efficiency is paramount. The Quadro 5000 is a professional workstation card from an earlier era, and its 152 W TDP and dual-slot requirement make it a poor fit for modern portable systems. The benchmark data suggests that for general compute workloads, the modern integrated GPU is the better choice, offering comparable or better performance with a fraction of the power draw.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile wins in OpenCL compute performance, scoring 7,435 versus the Quadro's 7,289. This advantage extends to API support, where the Vega 8 Mobile offers Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), enabling modern graphics features that the Quadro cannot utilize. The AMD part also wins decisively in power efficiency, with a 25 W TDP versus 152 W, making it suitable for battery-powered devices. Its FP32 compute of 1,127.4 GFLOPS is 56% higher than the Quadro's 722.3 GFLOPS, and it adds FP16 capability at 2.255 TFLOPS.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins where dedicated memory and fill-rate matter. Its 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus provides 120.0 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth, which can be advantageous for workloads that require consistent memory access without competing with CPU processes. The Quadro's pixel rate of 11.29 GPixel/s is 28% higher than the Vega 8 Mobile's 8.808 GPixel/s, and its 40 ROPs versus 8 suggests better performance in rasterization-heavy tasks. The Quadro also holds a marginally higher percentile ranking at 40 versus 39, and its nearest rival comparison shows it leading the GTX 750 by 0.9%, while the Vega 8 Mobile trails the same GPU by 0.3%.

For use-case selection, the data suggests the Vega 8 Mobile is the better choice for general compute workloads, modern API support, and power-constrained systems like laptops and portable devices. The Quadro 5000 retains advantages in memory bandwidth consistency and pixel fill-rate, making it potentially better suited for legacy professional applications that rely on dedicated VRAM and specific rendering pipelines. The benchmark results ultimately show that for most modern workloads, the efficiency of the 14 nm GCN architecture outweighs the raw hardware investment of the 40 nm Fermi design.