Quadro RTX 8000 vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 1740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 883 | 81 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.90 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.96 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | TU102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 384 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 4.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 6 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 type | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 672.0 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 Connectors | no data | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| 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 HD | 14
−1686%
| 250−260
+1686%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 40.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1718%
|
800−850
+1718%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−1700%
|
900−950
+1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1631%
|
450−500
+1631%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1718%
|
800−850
+1718%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1631%
|
450−500
+1631%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1718%
|
800−850
+1718%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1479%
|
300−310
+1479%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−1567%
|
400−450
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−1639%
|
400−450
+1639%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1700%
|
270−280
+1700%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1733%
|
220−230
+1733%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−1614%
|
120−130
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 1686% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.55 | 46.93 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 13 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
RTX 8000 has a 1740% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
