Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile vs Radeon PRO W7500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO W7500 with Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

PRO W7500
2023
8 GB GDDR6, 70 Watt
34.94
+2.7%

PRO W7500 outperforms RTX 4000 Mobile by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking149159
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency34.2321.21
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNavi 33TU104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date3 August 2023 (1 year ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores17922560
Core clock speed1500 MHz1110 MHz
Boost clock speed1700 MHz1560 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Watt110 Watt
Texture fill rate190.4249.6
Floating-point processing power12.19 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs112160
Tensor Coresno data320
Ray Tracing Cores2840

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length216 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1344 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.0 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 2.1No outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.76.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.21.2
Vulkan1.31.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD100−110
−7%
107
+7%
1440p60−65
−5%
63
+5%
4K45−50
−4.4%
47
+4.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.29no data
1440p7.15no data
4K9.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 101
+0%
101
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 106
+0%
106
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 87
+0%
87
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Dota 2 132
+0%
132
+0%
Far Cry 5 100
+0%
100
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 143
+0%
143
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Dota 2 127
+0%
127
+0%
Far Cry 5 96
+0%
96
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75
+0%
75
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+0%
66
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 42
+0%
42
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Far Cry 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how PRO W7500 and RTX 4000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 Mobile is 7% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 Mobile is 5% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 Mobile is 4% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.94 34.02
Recency 3 August 2023 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 6 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 70 Watt 110 Watt

PRO W7500 has a 2.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 57.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon PRO W7500 and Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation card while Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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.


AMD Radeon PRO W7500
Radeon PRO W7500
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 4000

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 17 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 33 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO W7500 or Quadro RTX 4000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.