GPU Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562. The GP100 leads by 27.5% in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the Quadro GP100 rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The GP100 sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. It is 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108), 2.1% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637), 4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134), and 4.6% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671).

Q: Where does the Radeon Instinct MI25 rank among all GPUs?

A: The MI25 is in the 90th percentile. Its nearest rival is the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809, which scores 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000) is 0.6% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870) is 1.9% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) is 2% higher.

Q: What are the memory specifications of the two cards?

A: Both cards have 16 GB of HBM2 memory, but the Quadro GP100 uses a 4096-bit bus with 732.2 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the MI25 uses a 2048-bit bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The GP100 packs 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die at 16 nm, yielding 25.1M transistors per mm². The MI25 packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die at 14 nm, yielding 25.3M transistors per mm².

Q: Do both cards support the same API versions?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP100 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 16 nm process. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm node. This fundamental architectural split influences nearly every downstream specification.

The GP100 houses 15,300 million transistors on a 610 mm² die, while the MI25 holds 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. Despite the GP100's larger absolute transistor count, the MI25 achieves a slightly higher transistor density at 25.3M per mm² versus 25.1M per mm² for the GP100. The process node difference (16 nm vs 14 nm) partially explains why AMD fit more transistors per area despite a smaller die.

Clock speeds differ meaningfully. The MI25 runs at a 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost, while the GP100 runs at 1304 MHz base and 1443 MHz boost. The MI25's higher clocks contribute to its raw compute peaks: 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) versus the GP100's 10.34 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.69 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Both cards deliver FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32.

The memory subsystems are starkly divergent. The GP100 uses a 4096-bit HBM2 bus with 732.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the MI25 uses a 2048-bit HBM2 bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 16 GB capacity, but the GP100's wider bus gives it a 68% bandwidth advantage. The MI25 compensates with a higher memory clock: 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) versus 715 MHz (1430 Mbps effective) for the GP100.

Shading resources differ in configuration. The MI25 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The GP100 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MI25 leads in shader and texture counts, but the GP100 leads in ROPs. Pixel throughput favors the GP100 at 138.5 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the MI25, while texture throughput favors the MI25 at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s.

Power delivery separates them further. The GP100 is rated at 235 W TDP with a single 8-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. The MI25 draws 300 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 700 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards with identical physical dimensions: 267 mm length and 111 mm height.

Display outputs present a major difference. The GP100 includes 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI25 has no display outputs at all. This reflects their intended roles: the Quadro GP100 can drive displays, whereas the Instinct MI25 is purely a compute accelerator.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 in overall compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 87,445 versus the MI25's 68,562 represents a 27.5% advantage. The GP100 also ranks higher at the 93rd percentile versus the 90th percentile for the MI25.

However, the verdict depends on workload characteristics. The MI25 offers higher raw FP32 throughput (12.29 TFLOPS vs 10.34 TFLOPS) and FP16 throughput (24.58 TFLOPS vs 20.69 TFLOPS). For workloads that scale with shader count and clock speed, the MI25's 4096 shading units at 1500 MHz boost provide a theoretical edge. The MI25 also leads in texture rate: 384.0 GTexel/s versus 323.2 GTexel/s.

For memory-bound workloads, the GP100 is the clear choice. Its 732.2 GB/s bandwidth versus 436.2 GB/s for the MI25, combined with a 4096-bit bus versus 2048-bit, gives it a substantial advantage in data movement. The GP100 also leads in pixel rate at 138.5 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, making it better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks.

Power efficiency favors the GP100. It delivers its benchmark-leading performance at 235 W, while the MI25 requires 300 W. The GP100 also needs only a single 8-pin connector and a 550 W PSU, versus two 8-pin connectors and a 700 W PSU for the MI25.

For users who need display outputs, the GP100 is the only option, as the MI25 has none. Both cards are end-of-life products, released about nine months apart (GP100 in September 2016, MI25 in June 2017).

The verdict: choose the Quadro GP100 for general compute, memory-intensive tasks, and any display-connected workstation use. Choose the Radeon Instinct MI25 only if your workload is specifically shader-throughput-bound and you can accommodate its higher power draw and lack of display outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Process node: GP100 at 16 nm (TSMC) vs MI25 at 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 15,300 million vs 12,500 million
• Die size: 610 mm² vs 495 mm²
• Base clock: 1304 MHz vs 1400 MHz
• Boost clock: 1443 MHz vs 1500 MHz
• Memory clock: 715 MHz (1430 Mbps) vs 852 MHz (1704 Mbps)
• Memory bus width: 4096 bit vs 2048 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 732.2 GB/s vs 436.2 GB/s
• Shading units: 3584 vs 4096
• TMUs: 224 vs 256
• ROPs: 96 vs 64
• Pixel rate: 138.5 GPixel/s vs 96.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 323.2 GTexel/s vs 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 10.34 TFLOPS vs 12.29 TFLOPS
• FP16: 20.69 TFLOPS vs 24.58 TFLOPS
• TDP: 235 W vs 300 W
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin vs 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 700 W
• Display outputs: 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort vs none
• Release date: September 2016 vs June 2017

Identical specifications include: 16 GB HBM2 memory, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, dual-slot width, 267 mm length, 111 mm height, DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3, and end-of-life production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins decisively. The GP100 scores 87,445 against the MI25's 68,562, producing a 27.5% delta in favor of NVIDIA.

Contextualizing this with rival scores: the GP100's 87,445 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108, a 0.4% edge) and the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637, a 2.1% edge). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134) by 4% and the RTX A4500 (91,671) by 4.6%. The MI25's 68,562 sits below the Intel Arc A770 (68,809) by 0.4%, below the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000) by 0.6%, below the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870) by 1.9%, and below the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986) by 2%.

The gap between the two cards (27.5%) is larger than the gap between the GP100 and its closest rival (0.4% from the W7600) or the MI25 and its closest rival (0.4% from the Arc A770). This indicates that the GP100 and MI25 occupy different performance tiers despite similar release timing and memory capacity.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro GP100 wins in:

• Overall OpenCL compute: 87,445 vs 68,562 (27.5% ahead)
• Memory bandwidth: 732.2 GB/s vs 436.2 GB/s
• Memory bus width: 4096 bit vs 2048 bit
• Pixel fill rate: 138.5 GPixel/s vs 96.00 GPixel/s
• ROP count: 96 vs 64
• Power efficiency: 235 W TDP vs 300 W TDP
• Power connector simplicity: single 8-pin vs dual 8-pin
• Display capability: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x DVI vs no outputs
• Benchmark percentile: 93rd vs 90th

AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 wins in:

• FP32 throughput: 12.29 TFLOPS vs 10.34 TFLOPS
• FP16 throughput: 24.58 TFLOPS vs 20.69 TFLOPS
• Shading unit count: 4096 vs 3584
• Texture mapping units: 256 vs 224
• Texture fill rate: 384.0 GTexel/s vs 323.2 GTexel/s
• Clock speeds: 1400 MHz base / 1500 MHz boost vs 1304 MHz / 1443 MHz
• Transistor density: 25.3M per mm² vs 25.1M per mm²

The use-case split follows these strengths. For memory-bandwidth-bound tasks such as large dataset processing, high-resolution rendering, or any workload that saturates memory, the GP100's 732.2 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial margin. Its pixel rate advantage also suits display-driven workstation applications, especially given its integrated display outputs.

For shader-compute-bound tasks that exploit FP16 or FP32 throughput, the MI25's higher clock speeds and additional shading units give it a theoretical advantage. Its higher texture rate benefits workloads with heavy texture sampling. However, the MI25's lack of display outputs confines it to headless compute servers, and its 300 W TDP with dual 8-pin connectors imposes greater power infrastructure demands.

The overall win count is 1 for the GP100 (the sole benchmark) and 0 for the MI25, but the architectural split suggests each card excels in distinct workload categories. The GP100 is the more balanced, capable card for most scenarios; the MI25 is a specialized shader-throughput device for compute-dense environments.