Quadro VX 200 vs Radeon VII
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 86 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 25.47 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.03 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | G92 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 February 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 January 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
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 | 3840 | 112 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 420.0 | 25.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.44 TFLOPS | 0.252 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 240 | 56 |
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 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 280 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1024 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
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 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 7 February 2019 | 8 January 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 75 Watt |
Radeon VII has an age advantage of 11 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
VX 200, on the other hand, has 293.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Radeon VII and Quadro VX 200. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon VII is a desktop card while Quadro VX 200 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.
