Radeon PRO W7700 vs Quadro NVS 420
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 420 and Radeon PRO W7700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
PRO W7700 outperforms NVS 420 by a whopping 19144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1335 | 40 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 82.64 |
| Power efficiency | 0.54 | 21.76 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | G98 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 20 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 13 November 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $131.43 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
PRO W7700 has 826300% better value for money than NVS 420.
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 | 8 ×2 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.400 ×2 | 499.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0224 TFLOPS ×2 | 31.95 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 ×2 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 ×2 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
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 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB ×2 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s ×2 | 576.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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 | 0.27 | 51.96 |
| Recency | 20 January 2009 | 13 November 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 190 Watt |
NVS 420 has 375% lower power consumption.
PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 19144.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 420 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.
