Radeon RX Vega 64 vs Quadro RTX 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro RTX 4000 with Radeon RX Vega 64, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4000
2018, $899
8 GB GDDR6, 160 Watt
35.48
+7.3%

RTX 4000 outperforms RX Vega 64 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking162181
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.8516.61
Power efficiency17.278.73
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameTU104Vega 10
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date13 November 2018 (7 years ago)7 August 2017 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899 $499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX Vega 64 has 53% better value for money than RTX 4000.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores23044096
Core clock speed1005 MHz1247 MHz
Boost clock speed1545 MHz1546 MHz
Number of transistors13,600 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)160 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate222.5395.8
Floating-point processing power7.119 TFLOPS12.66 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs144256
Tensor Cores288no data
Ray Tracing Cores36no data
L1 Cache2.3 MB1 MB
L2 Cache4 MB4 MB

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 3.0 x16
Length241 mm279 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 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 typeGDDR6HBM2
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz945 MHz
Memory bandwidth416.0 GB/s483.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors3x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.86.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.1.125
CUDA7.5-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RTX 4000 35.48
+7.3%
RX Vega 64 33.06

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.

RTX 4000 14845
+7.3%
Samples: 2798
RX Vega 64 13832
Samples: 3513

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 HD120−130
+3.4%
116
1440p80−85
+3.9%
77
4K50−5551
+2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.494.30
+42.6%
1440p11.246.48
+42.3%
4K17.989.78
+45.6%
  • RX Vega 64 has 43% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX Vega 64 has 42% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX Vega 64 has 46% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 95−100 95−100
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 95−100 95−100
Battlefield 5 161 161
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Far Cry 5 110 110
Fortnite 150−160 150−160
Forza Horizon 4 167 167
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 315 315

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 95−100 95−100
Battlefield 5 146 146
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Dota 2 150 150
Far Cry 5 104 104
Far Cry 6 95−100 95−100
Fortnite 150−160 150−160
Forza Horizon 4 158 158
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120 110−120
Metro Exodus 73 73
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 132 132
Valorant 293 293

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 139 139
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Dota 2 138 138
Far Cry 5 98 98
Forza Horizon 4 128 128
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 77
Valorant 140 140

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 80−85 80−85
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240 230−240
Far Cry 6 60−65 60−65
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70 65−70
Metro Exodus 46 46
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 263 263

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 35−40
Far Cry 5 81 81
Forza Horizon 4 98 98
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65 60−65

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 85−90 85−90

4K
High

Atomic Heart 27−30 27−30
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Far Cry 6 24−27 24−27
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75 70−75
Metro Exodus 46 46
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48 48
Valorant 205 205

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 59 59
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 16−18
Dota 2 96 96
Far Cry 5 44 44
Forza Horizon 4 66 66
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 40−45

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 40−45

This is how RTX 4000 and RX Vega 64 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 is 3% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 is 4% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 64 is 2% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.48 33.06
Recency 13 November 2018 7 August 2017
Chip lithography 12 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 160 Watt 295 Watt

RTX 4000 has a 7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 46% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro RTX 4000 and Radeon RX Vega 64.

Be aware that Quadro RTX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop one.

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.


3.6 542 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 892 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro RTX 4000 or Radeon RX Vega 64, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.