GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 and NVIDIA Quadro GV100 are two very different GPUs aimed at different priorities. The RTX 4070 is a modern Ada Lovelace graphics card built for gaming and general rendering, while the Quadro GV100 is a workstation behemoth from the Volta era designed for massive memory capacity and compute density. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the RTX 4070 wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, but the GV100 holds a unique advantage in raw memory capacity that the RTX 4070 cannot match.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce RTX 4070 dominates almost every standard benchmark metric. Its largest victory comes in Passmark GPU Compute, where it scores 14,720 compared to the GV100’s 9,069, a massive 62.3% advantage. This suggests the RTX 4070 is the better choice for general-purpose compute workloads that rely on standard shader instructions. The RTX 4070 also wins decisively in DirectX 9 (320 vs 207, a 54.6% lead) and DirectX 11 (244 vs 168, a 45.2% lead), indicating much stronger legacy API performance. In modern DirectX 12, the RTX 4070 maintains a 22.6% lead (103 vs 84).

The Quadro GV100 wins exactly one test: Passmark DirectX 10, with a marginal 140 vs 139 score. That 0.7% edge is effectively a statistical tie and not a practical advantage. Where the GV100 truly wins is outside the benchmark suite: it offers 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, compared to the RTX 4070’s 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 192-bit bus. For workloads that require loading massive datasets into VRAM, such as scientific visualization or machine learning inference with large models, the GV100’s capacity is its primary weapon, even if its raw compute speed is lower.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial. The RTX 4070 uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². In contrast, the GV100 uses the GV100 chip on TSMC’s 12 nm process, with 21,100 million transistors on a much larger 815 mm² die, giving a density of just 25.9M per mm². The RTX 4070 is a far more efficient design, both in terms of die size and power draw (200 W vs 250 W TDP).

The RTX 4070 features 5,888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and modern AI features. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, but it has no RT cores at all. It does include 640 tensor cores, which is significantly more than the RTX 4070’s 184, making the GV100 potentially stronger in pure tensor math. However, the RTX 4070’s FP32 performance is 29.15 TFLOPS versus the GV100’s 16.66 TFLOPS, meaning the RTX 4070 has nearly double the single-precision throughput.

Memory architecture is where the GV100 flexes. Its 32 GB HBM2 memory with a 4096-bit bus delivers 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, far exceeding the RTX 4070’s 504.2 GB/s. The GV100 also has a higher pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s vs 158.4) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s vs 455.4). However, the RTX 4070 supports newer APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the GV100’s DirectX 12 (12_1), and the RTX 4070 has a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the GV100’s PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data tells a consistent story. The RTX 4070 wins Geekbench OpenCL by a slim 3.2% margin (154,858 vs 150,004), showing that in pure compute, the two are closer than other tests suggest. The Vulkan gap is much larger: the RTX 4070 scores 174,152 against 139,526, a 24.8% lead. This likely reflects the RTX 4070’s newer architecture and better driver optimization for modern graphics APIs.

Passmark results amplify the RTX 4070’s advantage. In DirectX 9, the RTX 4070’s 320 beats the GV100’s 207 by 54.6%. DirectX 11 sees a 45.2% gap (244 vs 168). DirectX 12 shows a 22.6% lead (103 vs 84). The 2D test (Passmark G2D) shows the RTX 4070 ahead by 39.2% (1,164 vs 836), and the overall 3D test (Passmark G3D) shows a 37% advantage (26,927 vs 19,650). The largest single gap is in GPU Compute, where the RTX 4070’s 14,720 is 62.3% higher than the GV100’s 9,069.

The only GV100 victory, DirectX 10 with 140 vs 139, is negligible. The RTX 4070’s average benchmark score is 37,648, placing it in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the GV100 averages 35,520 and sits in the 80th percentile. The RTX 4070’s closest rival in the database is the NVIDIA Tesla P4, with a delta of just 0.1%. The GV100’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile, with a 0.2% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute power?

A: The RTX 4070 is significantly stronger. It produces 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the GV100’s 16.66 TFLOPS. In Passmark GPU Compute, the RTX 4070 scores 14,720 against 9,069, a 62.3% lead.

Q: Does the Quadro GV100 have any advantage in memory?

A: Yes, and it is substantial. The GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 4070 has 12 GB of GDDR6X with 504.2 GB/s. The GV100 also uses a 4096-bit bus versus the RTX 4070’s 192-bit bus.

Q: Can the GV100 do ray tracing?

A: No. The GV100 has no RT cores, while the RTX 4070 has 46 RT cores. The RTX 4070 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How do they compare in legacy DirectX performance?

A: The RTX 4070 wins in DirectX 9 (320 vs 207) and DirectX 11 (244 vs 168). The GV100 edges out a win in DirectX 10 (140 vs 139), but that 0.7% margin is negligible.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The RTX 4070 has a TDP of 200 W, while the GV100 has a TDP of 250 W. The RTX 4070 is also built on a 5 nm process versus the GV100’s 12 nm process, making it far more transistor-dense.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: Both are end-of-life. The RTX 4070 was released in April 2023, while the GV100 was released in March 2018.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any workload that fits within 12 GB of VRAM, the RTX 4070 is the superior card. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, often by large margins. The 62.3% lead in GPU compute and 37% lead in overall 3D performance make it the clear choice for gaming, rendering, and general GPU compute. Its smaller die, lower TDP, and modern features like RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it a more capable and future-proof product.

The Quadro GV100’s only real argument is its 32 GB of HBM2 memory. If your work requires loading models or datasets larger than 12 GB into VRAM, the GV100 is the only option here. Its 868.4 GB/s bandwidth and 4096-bit bus also give it a memory bandwidth advantage that the RTX 4070 cannot match. The GV100’s 640 tensor cores might also be preferable for certain AI workloads, though its lower FP32 throughput and lack of RT cores limit its general appeal.

For most users, the RTX 4070 is the practical purchase. It is faster in nearly every measurable way, runs cooler and quieter, and uses less power. The GV100 is a niche product for a specific type of workstation workload that demands enormous memory capacity. If you need 32 GB of VRAM, the GV100 is your answer. If you do not, the RTX 4070 is the better GPU, period.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 | NVIDIA Quadro GV100 |

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

| Chip | AD104 | GV100 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Volta |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1920 MHz | 1132 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2475 MHz | 1627 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective) | 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 504.2 GB/s | 868.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 5888 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 184 | 320 |

| ROPs | 64 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 46 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 184 | 640 |

| Pixel Rate | 158.4 GPixel/s | 208.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 455.4 GTexel/s | 520.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 29.15 TFLOPS | 16.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1) | 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 200 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 240 mm (9.4 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 110 mm (4.3 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |