Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs Radeon Pro SSG

Place in the ranking	201	257
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.17	no data
Power efficiency	7.56	24.90
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Fiji	TU106
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	26 July 2016 (8 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$9,999	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	4096	2304
Core clock speed	1000 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	1215 MHz
Number of transistors	8,900 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	260 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	268.8	175.0
Floating-point processing power	8.602 TFLOPS	5.599 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	64
TMUs	256	144
Tensor Cores	no data	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	36

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 size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	HBM	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	4096 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	500 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	512.0 GB/s	448.0 GB/s
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	1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.2	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	6.5	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.170	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro SSG 27.45
+31.5%

RTX 3000 Max-Q 20.88

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.

Pro SSG 10971
+31.5%

RTX 3000 Max-Q 8345

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	95−100 +28.4%	74 −28.4%
1440p	55−60 +22.2%	45 −22.2%
4K	40−45 +21.2%	33 −21.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	105.25	no data
1440p	181.80	no data
4K	249.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	63 +0%	63 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	26 +0%	26 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	77 +0%	77 +0%
Valorant	119 +0%	119 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	22 +0%	22 +0%
Dota 2	99 +0%	99 +0%
Far Cry 5	80 +0%	80 +0%
Fortnite	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	85 +0%	85 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
World of Tanks	240−250 +0%	240−250 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +0%	56 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18 +0%	18 +0%
Dota 2	120 +0%	120 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Valorant	103 +0%	103 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	49 +0%	49 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 +0%	49 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
World of Tanks	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45 +0%	45 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Valorant	68 +0%	68 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Dota 2	65 +0%	65 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	65 +0%	65 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65 +0%	65 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24 +0%	24 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +0%	5 +0%
Dota 2	76 +0%	76 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Fortnite	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Valorant	32 +0%	32 +0%

This is how Pro SSG and RTX 3000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

Pro SSG is 28% faster in 1080p
Pro SSG is 22% faster in 1440p
Pro SSG is 21% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	27.45	20.88
Recency	26 July 2016	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	260 Watt	60 Watt

Pro SSG has a 31.5% higher aggregate performance score.

RTX 3000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro SSG is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro SSG is a workstation card while Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.