Radeon Pro 455 vs Quadro 7000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 7000 with Radeon Pro 455, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 7000
2012, $14,499
6 GB GDDR5, 204 Watt
8.34
+12.6%

7000 outperforms Pro 455 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking541577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.1516.33
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGF110Baffin
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date2 May 2012 (13 years ago)30 October 2016 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$14,499 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores512768
Core clock speed651 MHz855 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)204 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate41.6641.04
Floating-point processing power1.3322 TFLOPS1.313 TFLOPS
ROPs4816
TMUs6448
L1 Cache896 KB192 KB
L2 Cache768 KB1024 KB

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 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed851 MHz1270 MHz
Memory bandwidth163.4 GB/s81.28 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.0-

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.

Quadro 7000 8.34
+12.6%
Pro 455 7.41

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.

Quadro 7000 3505
+12.6%
Samples: 2
Pro 455 3112
Samples: 2

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 HD35−40
+0%
35
+0%
4K24−27
+9.1%
22
−9.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p414.26no data
4K604.13no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 145
+0%
145
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24
+0%
24
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+0%
25
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 23
+0%
23
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how Quadro 7000 and Pro 455 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • Quadro 7000 is 9% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.34 7.41
Recency 2 May 2012 30 October 2016
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 204 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro 7000 has a 12.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Pro 455, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 482.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 7000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 455 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 7000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro 455 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 7000
Quadro 7000
AMD Radeon Pro 455
Radeon Pro 455

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.


3.4 5 votes

Rate Quadro 7000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 455 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 7000 or Radeon Pro 455, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.