Quadro RTX 8000 vs Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms R4 (Stoney Ridge) by a whopping 4177% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1070 | 61 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.90 |
| Power efficiency | 5.35 | 13.21 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | TU102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 672.0 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 | no data | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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 | 9
−3789%
| 350−400
+3789%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 28.57 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3829%
|
550−600
+3829%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−4119%
|
1350−1400
+4119%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3829%
|
550−600
+3829%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−3991%
|
450−500
+3991%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−4119%
|
1350−1400
+4119%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3829%
|
550−600
+3829%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−3991%
|
450−500
+3991%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−4119%
|
1350−1400
+4119%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−4043%
|
290−300
+4043%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−4150%
|
170−180
+4150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
This is how R4 (Stoney Ridge) and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 3789% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 50.04 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 13 August 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 260 Watt |
R4 (Stoney Ridge) has 1633.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 8000, on the other hand, has a 4176.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
