NVIDIA Quadro GV100 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 and NVIDIA RTX A1000 represent two distinct eras of professional workstation graphics. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but also reveals significant differences in architecture, power requirements, and physical design. The Quadro GV100, a Volta-generation flagship from 2018, is an end-of-life product built for maximum compute throughput, while the RTX A1000, an Ampere-generation entry-point from 2024, is an active, power-efficient solution. This analysis compares their benchmark results, specifications, and architectural philosophies to determine which card suits specific professional workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a decisive victory for the Quadro GV100, winning both shared benchmark tests by a substantial margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro GV100 scores 150,004, while the RTX A1000 scores 52,078. This results in a delta of 188%, meaning the GV100 is nearly three times faster in this compute-heavy API. Similarly, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GV100 achieves 139,526 points against the A1000’s 49,574, a delta of 181.4%. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational gap in raw compute capability that favors the older, larger Volta chip.

However, the benchmark comparison is limited to these two tests, as the products share no other common benchmarks in the data. The Quadro GV100’s broader benchmark suite shows an average benchmark score of 35,520, placing it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX A1000, with its sparser benchmark set, holds an average score of 34,207 and sits in the 79th percentile. This near-identical percentile ranking is intriguing; despite the GV100’s massive lead in absolute compute tests, the A1000’s average score is only 3.8% lower (35,520 vs 34,207). This suggests that the A1000 performs relatively better in other, unshared workloads, likely those that leverage its newer architecture features.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides additional context. The Quadro GV100’s average score of 35,520 is 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA A2 (34,690) and 2.1% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289), while being 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Duo (35,860). The RTX A1000’s average score of 34,207 is 0.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154) and AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133), and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997), while trailing the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355) by 0.4%. These narrow margins around the A1000 indicate it is a well-balanced performer in its segment, whereas the GV100’s wider spread against its rivals shows its peak performance is more variable depending on the workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in raw compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is significantly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 150,004 versus the RTX A1000’s 52,078, a 188% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 139,526 versus 49,574, an 181.4% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare across all tests?

A: The Quadro GV100 has a higher average benchmark score of 35,520, compared to the RTX A1000’s 34,207. This is a difference of 3.8%, despite the GV100’s far larger lead in the shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: What are the physical size and power requirement differences?

A: The Quadro GV100 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, requiring a 600 W suggested power supply and a single 8-pin power connector, with a 250 W TDP. The RTX A1000 is a single-slot card at 163 mm in length, with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W power supply.

Q: Do these GPUs support different PCIe generations?

A: Yes. The Quadro GV100 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the RTX A1000 uses a newer PCIe 4.0 x8 interface.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s.

Q: Are there differences in API support?

A: The RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro GV100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear choice based on workload. For professionals whose primary tasks involve massive parallel compute, large dataset manipulation, or high-resolution rendering that benefits from enormous memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the superior option. Its 188% OpenCL and 181.4% Vulkan leads, combined with 32 GB of memory and 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth, make it a compute powerhouse. The GV100 also holds a 3.8% higher average benchmark score overall.

For professionals prioritizing physical footprint, power efficiency, and modern feature support, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the more appropriate choice. Its single-slot, 163 mm design and 50 W TDP allow for compact, low-power workstations. The A1000’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and its PCIe 4.0 interface indicate a more modern feature set. Its average score (34,207) is within 3.8% of the GV100, meaning that in many non-compute-specific tasks, the performance gap narrows considerably. The A1000 is also an active product, while the GV100 is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Quadro GV100 is built on a 12 nm process with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, whereas the RTX A1000 uses an 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. This leads to a transistor density of 25.9M per mm² for the GV100 and 43.5M per mm² for the A1000.

The clock speeds also differ significantly. The GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz and a boost clock of 1627 MHz, while the A1000 has a base clock of 727 MHz and a boost of 1462 MHz. The GV100’s memory runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective), while the A1000’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GV100. It has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, compared to the A1000’s 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GV100 also has 640 tensor cores, while the A1000 has 72. The pixel rate is 208.3 GPixel/s for the GV100 versus 46.78 GPixel/s for the A1000, and the texture rate is 520.6 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 16.66 TFLOPS for the GV100 and 6.737 TFLOPS for the A1000. Notably, the GV100’s FP16 performance is 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the A1000’s is 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Physical dimensions vary, with the GV100 at 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, versus the A1000 at 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The GV100 is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the A1000 is single-slot with no power connectors. The GV100 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the A1000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are similar in count (4x DisplayPort 1.4a for GV100, 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for A1000). The GV100 was released on 2018-03-26, while the A1000 was released on 2024-04-15. The launch MSRP for the GV100 was 8,999 USD; the A1000 has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two cards is fundamental. The Quadro GV100 is based on the Volta architecture, a design that prioritized raw compute throughput and introduced dedicated tensor cores for AI workloads. It was manufactured by TSMC on a 12 nm process. The GV100 features 640 tensor cores, which are absent from the RTX A1000’s specification sheet in the same quantity. The Volta architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

The RTX A1000 is based on the Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This newer architecture brings support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like hardware ray tracing. The A1000 has 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores, indicating a focus on real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated features. The A1000’s FP16 performance is rated at 1:1 with FP32, meaning it does not gain a throughput advantage in half-precision workloads, whereas the GV100’s FP16 performance is double its FP32 rate.

The generation naming reflects this: the GV100 belongs to the “Quadro Volta (Vx000)” generation, while the A1000 belongs to the “Workstation Ampere (Ax000)” generation. The GV100’s predecessor is Quadro Pascal, and its successor is Quadro Turing. The A1000’s predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada. This places the two cards on opposite sides of a generational shift, with the GV100 representing the peak of the pre-Turing compute era and the A1000 representing the modern, power-efficient Ampere entry point.