Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro RTX 8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 8000 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms Vega 7 by a whopping 586% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 61 | 548 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.34 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.44 | 11.32 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | TU102 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4608 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 18,600 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 260 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 509.8 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.31 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 8 |
| TMUs | 288 | 28 |
| Tensor Cores | 576 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72 | no data |
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 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 672.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| 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 | 150−160
+552%
| 23
−552%
|
| 1440p | 190−200
+579%
| 28
−579%
|
| 4K | 120−130
+567%
| 18
−567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 66.66 | no data |
| 1440p | 52.63 | no data |
| 4K | 83.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Valorant | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Valorant | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how RTX 8000 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 552% faster in 1080p
- RTX 8000 is 579% faster in 1440p
- RTX 8000 is 567% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.19 | 6.44 |
| Recency | 13 August 2018 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 260 Watt | 45 Watt |
RTX 8000 has a 586.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 477.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
