Radeon PRO W7900 vs Quadro RTX 8000 Passive

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated12
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data16.64
Power efficiencyno data17.93
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameTU102Navi 31
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date13 August 2018 (6 years ago)13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$9,999 $3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores46086144
Core clock speed1230 MHz1855 MHz
Boost clock speed1620 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors18,600 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)260 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate466.6958.1
Floating-point processing power14.93 TFLOPS61.32 TFLOPS
ROPs96192
TMUs288384
Tensor Cores576no data
Ray Tracing Cores7296

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm280 mm
Width2-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin2x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount48 GB48 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth672.0 GB/s864.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA7.5-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 August 2018 13 April 2023
Chip lithography 12 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 260 Watt 295 Watt

RTX 8000 Passive has 13.5% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Quadro RTX 8000 Passive and Radeon PRO W7900. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Passive
Quadro RTX 8000 Passive
AMD Radeon PRO W7900
Radeon PRO W7900

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 20 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 8000 Passive on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 72 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.