NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 vs AMD FireStream 9370
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 and AMD FireStream 9370 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 8 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher core clock speed: 1005 MHz vs 825 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 40 nm
- 3x more memory clock speed: 14000 MHz vs 4600 MHz
- 7.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 19370 vs 2528
- Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 869 vs 763
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 August 2018 vs 23 June 2010 |
Core clock speed | 1005 MHz vs 825 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 40 nm |
Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz vs 4600 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 vs 2528 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 vs 763 |
Reasons to consider the AMD FireStream 9370
- Around 11% lower typical power consumption: 225 Watt vs 250 Watt
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 225 Watt vs 250 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
GPU 2: AMD FireStream 9370
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | AMD FireStream 9370 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 19370 | 2528 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 869 | 763 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 136722 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 401.574 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 6432.348 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 43.914 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 215.219 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2101.927 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 21578 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3652 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3290 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 21578 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3652 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3290 | |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 | AMD FireStream 9370 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Turing | TeraScale 2 |
Code name | TU102 | Cypress |
Launch date | 13 August 2018 | 23 June 2010 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $9,999 | |
Place in performance rating | 103 | 130 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 1005 MHz | 825 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 225 Watt |
Transistor count | 18,600 million | 2,154 million |
Floating-point performance | 2,640.0 gflops | |
Pipelines | 1600 | |
Texture fill rate | 66.0 GTexel / s | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 4600 MHz |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 147.2 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | |
Memory type | GDDR5 |