Radeon Pro W5700X vs Quadro RTX 8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 8000 and Radeon Pro W5700X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 8000 outperforms Pro W5700X by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 60 | 74 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.87 | 43.42 |
| Power efficiency | 13.29 | 15.38 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU102 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) | 11 December 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro W5700X has 2222% better value for money than RTX 8000.
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 cores | 4608 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 18,600 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 260 Watt | 205 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 509.8 | 293.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.31 TFLOPS | 9.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 288 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | 576 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72 | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 305 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | 448.0 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 49.97 | 45.60 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 11 December 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 260 Watt | 205 Watt |
RTX 8000 has a 9.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro W5700X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 26.8% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 8000 and Radeon Pro W5700X.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
