Quadro GV100 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

Place in the ranking	174	52
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	45.83	2.76
Power efficiency	10.56	14.23
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Volta (2017−2020)
GPU code name	Vega 10	GV100
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	14 August 2017 (7 years ago)	27 March 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$8,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro Vega 56 has 1561% better value for money than Quadro GV100.

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	3584	5120
Core clock speed	1138 MHz	1132 MHz
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1627 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	21,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	250 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	520.6
Floating-point processing power	8.96 TFLOPS	16.66 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	128
TMUs	224	320
Tensor Cores	no data	640

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	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 6-pin + 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	HBM2	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	4096 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	848 MHz
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	868.4 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, 3x DisplayPort	4x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.0

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 Vega 56 32.13

Quadro GV100 51.56
+60.5%

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 Vega 56 12353

Quadro GV100 19824
+60.5%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 56 61716

Quadro GV100 144949
+135%

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	100 −60%	160−170 +60%
4K	61 −55.7%	95−100 +55.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.99 +1310%	56.24 −1310%
4K	6.54 +1348%	94.73 −1348%

Pro Vega 56 has 1310% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 has 1348% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −58.7%	100−105 +58.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −49.3%	100−105 +49.3%
Elden Ring	100−110 −56%	170−180 +56%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 −52.2%	140−150 +52.2%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −58.7%	100−105 +58.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −49.3%	100−105 +49.3%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −54.4%	230−240 +54.4%
Metro Exodus	80−85 −48.1%	120−130 +48.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 −51.5%	100−105 +51.5%
Valorant	120−130 −56.3%	200−210 +56.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 −52.2%	140−150 +52.2%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −58.7%	100−105 +58.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −49.3%	100−105 +49.3%
Dota 2	36 −52.8%	55−60 +52.8%
Elden Ring	100−110 −56%	170−180 +56%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −59.1%	140−150 +59.1%
Fortnite	150−160 −60%	240−250 +60%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −54.4%	230−240 +54.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−110 −52.4%	160−170 +52.4%
Metro Exodus	80−85 −48.1%	120−130 +48.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 −58.5%	290−300 +58.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 −51.5%	100−105 +51.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 −56%	170−180 +56%
Valorant	120−130 −56.3%	200−210 +56.3%
World of Tanks	270−280 −44.9%	400−450 +44.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 −52.2%	140−150 +52.2%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −58.7%	100−105 +58.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 −49.3%	100−105 +49.3%
Dota 2	102 −56.9%	160−170 +56.9%
Far Cry 5	85−90 −59.1%	140−150 +59.1%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 −54.4%	230−240 +54.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 −58.5%	290−300 +58.5%
Valorant	120−130 −56.3%	200−210 +56.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	55−60 −57.9%	90−95 +57.9%
Elden Ring	60−65 −55.7%	95−100 +55.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −57.9%	90−95 +57.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −60%	280−290 +60%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%
World of Tanks	200−210 −44.9%	300−310 +44.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 −53.2%	95−100 +53.2%
Counter-Strike 2	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 −50%	45−50 +50%
Far Cry 5	100−110 −58.4%	160−170 +58.4%
Forza Horizon 4	85−90 −57.3%	140−150 +57.3%
Metro Exodus	70−75 −52.8%	110−120 +52.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 −53.8%	80−85 +53.8%
Valorant	90−95 −50.5%	140−150 +50.5%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%
Dota 2	55−60 −52.5%	90−95 +52.5%
Elden Ring	27−30 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −52.5%	90−95 +52.5%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −53.8%	40−45 +53.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −58.4%	160−170 +58.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −50%	30−33 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −52.5%	90−95 +52.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −52.8%	55−60 +52.8%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −45.2%	45−50 +45.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −50%	18−20 +50%
Dota 2	96 −56.3%	150−160 +56.3%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −55.6%	70−75 +55.6%
Fortnite	40−45 −51.2%	65−70 +51.2%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −56.9%	80−85 +56.9%
Valorant	45−50 −59.6%	75−80 +59.6%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and Quadro GV100 compete in popular games:

Quadro GV100 is 60% faster in 1080p
Quadro GV100 is 56% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	32.13	51.56
Recency	14 August 2017	27 March 2018
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	250 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has 19% lower power consumption.

Quadro GV100, on the other hand, has a 60.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro GV100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 56 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro GV100 is a workstation one.

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