Radeon Pro Vega II vs Quadro FX 4800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4800 and Radeon Pro Vega II, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro Vega II outperforms FX 4800 by a whopping 1471% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 834 | 106 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 17.53 |
| Power efficiency | 1.18 | 5.85 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | Vega 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 November 2008 (16 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,799 | $2,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro Vega II has 29117% better value for money than FX 4800.
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 | 192 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 602 MHz | 1574 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 13,230 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 475 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.53 | 440.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 256 |
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 2.0 x16 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 806 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 825.3 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.3 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 2.22 | 34.88 |
| Recency | 11 November 2008 | 3 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 475 Watt |
FX 4800 has 216.7% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has a 1471.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 2033.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega II is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
