Radeon Pro vs. Quadro: A Fresh Look At Workstation GPU Performance

Nvidia Technical
Print
by Rob Williams on April 30, 2018 in Graphics & Displays

There hasn’t been a great deal of movement on the ProViz side of the graphics card market in recent months, so now seems like a great time to get up to speed on the current performance outlook. Equipped with 12 GPUs, one multi-GPU config, current drivers, and a gauntlet of tests, let’s find out which cards deserve your attention.

SiSoftware Sandra: Cryptography, Financial & Scientific Analysis

On the previous page, I mentioned that SPEC is an organization that crafts some of the best, most comprehensive benchmarks going, and in a similar vein, I can compliment SiSoftware. This is a company that thrives on offering support for certain technologies before those technologies are even available to the consumer. In that regard, its Sandra benchmark might seem a little bleeding-edge, but at the same time, its tests are established, refined, and accurate across multiple runs.

While Sandra offers a huge number of benchmarks, just three of the GPU ones are focused on: Cryptography, Financial Analysis, and Scientific Analysis. Some of the results are a bit too complex for a graph, so a handful of tables are coming your way.

SiSoftware Sandra 2017

Cryptography

AMD Radeon Pro and NVIDIA Quadro Performance - Sandra 2017 Cryptography (High)
AMD Radeon Pro and NVIDIA Quadro Performance - Sandra 2017 Cryptography (Higher)

It’s hard to talk about these results without first drawing attention to the top: Vega 64 manages to match SLI’d TITAN Xps (which actually scale properly) in both the encrypt/decrypt process, improves-upon the crypto test against the TITAN Xp, and comes close to the same GPU for the hashing test. Where crypto and hashing are concerned, nothing can touch the dual-GPU test, but this will come as a surprise to no GPU miner.

For cryptography, AMD easily wins here. The company must care an awful lot about crypto, because we’ve seen similar gains on the Ryzen side of things as well. For a fun comparison, look at the WX 3100 versus the Vega 64. The difference is close to being 1:10, but of course, they target very different customer bases. Even so, there’s a lot of value to be had from Vega.

Financial Analysis

Sandra 2017 – Financial Analysis (FP32)
Black-ScholesBinomialMonte Carlo
NVIDIA TITAN Xp x 226 G/s4.4 M/s11.1 M/s
NVIDIA TITAN Xp14 G/s2.3 M/s5.7 M/s
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti11.6 G/s2.1 M/s5.38 M/s
NVIDIA Quadro P600011.6 G/s2.2 M/s5.9 M/s
AMD Radeon RX Vega 649.3 G/s2.7 M/s4.2 M/s
NVIDIA Quadro P50007.8 G/s1.7 M/s4.2 M/s
NVIDIA Quadro P40006.6 G/s845.6 k/s2.2 M/s
AMD Radeon RX 5805.8 G/s1.5 M/s2.3 M/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 71005.3 G/s1.3 M/s1.9 M/s
NVIDIA Quadro P20003.8 G/s653.7 k/s1.6 M/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 51003.7 G/s530.3 k/s736.2 k/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 41002.2 G/s497.8 k/s728 k/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 31002.5 G/s320.6 k/s467.4 k/s
Results in options-per-second. 1 GOPS = 1,000 MOPS; 1 MOPS = 1,000 kOPS.
Sandra 2017 – Financial Analysis (FP64)
Black-ScholesBinomialMonte Carlo
NVIDIA TITAN Xp x 22.7 G/s274 k/s554 k/s
AMD Radeon RX Vega 642.1 G/s181 k/s515.1 k/s
NVIDIA TITAN Xp1.5 G/s143.4 k/s297.2 k/s
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti1.4 G/s135.4 k/s265.8 k/s
NVIDIA Quadro P60001.3 G/s131.3 k/s271.3 k/s
AMD Radeon RX 5801.1 G/s90.1 k/s280.4 k/s
NVIDIA Quadro P5000908.7 M/s91.7 k/s188.4 k/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100962.6 M/s81.27 k/s239.2 k/s
NVIDIA Quadro P4000565.9 M/s55.5 k/s110.7 k/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100456.2 M/s52.7 k/s108.8 k/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100384 M/s34 k/s95.2 k/s
NVIDIA Quadro P2000359.6 M/s36 k/s74.8 k/s
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100219.1 M/s17.9 k/s54.8 k/s
Results in options-per-second. 1 GOPS = 1,000 MOPS; 1 MOPS = 1,000 kOPS.

Not a single one of the GPUs featured here supports proper double-precision performance (like a Radeon Instinct, NVIDIA Tesla, or Quadro GP100/GV100 would provide), so all of the performance on that side of the fence is kind of pointless, because no one revolves their work around FP64 and opts for capped hardware. That said, when we compare the Vega 64 to 1080 Ti, there are some clear advantages from the red team.

For the most part, raw performance pretty much dictates the ranking here, so NVIDIA’s TITAN Xp keeps glued to the top for the single-precision tests. The rest of the cards slot in pretty much where we’d expect. Neither vendor seems to have exclusive optimizations for these computations, but overall, Vega 64 once again brings some great performance for its (SRP) price point.

Scientific Analysis

Sandra 2017 – Scientific Analysis (FP32)
GEMMFFTN-Body
NVIDIA TITAN Xp x 213 TFLOPS503.2 GFLOPS10.2 TFLOPS
NVIDIA TITAN Xp6.8 TFLOPS257.5 GFLOPS5.2 TFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P60006.6 TFLOPS157.2 GFLOPS5.08 TFLOPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti6 TFLOPS216.3 GFLOPS5 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 646 TFLOPS326.9 GFLOPS4.8 TFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P50004.6 TFLOPS106.7 GFLOPS3.5 TFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P40003.1 TFLOPS128.8 GFLOPS1.8 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon RX 5803.5 TFLOPS227.6 GFLOPS3.2 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 71002.8 TFLOPS205 GFLOPS2.2 TFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P20001.9 TFLOPS86 GFLOPS1.6 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 51001.1 TFLOPS143.2 GFLOPS860.8 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 41001.1 TFLOPS83 GFLOPS875.3 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100750.6 GFLOPS69.5 GFLOPS646.4 GFLOPS
GEMM = General Matrix Multiply; FFT = Fast Fourier Transform; N-Body = N-Body Simulation.
Sandra 2017 – Scientific Analysis (FP64)
GEMMFFTN-Body
NVIDIA TITAN Xp x 2661.8 GFLOPS365.5 GFLOPS482.4 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64608.6 GFLOPS154.8 GFLOPS460.3 GFLOPS
NVIDIA TITAN Xp357.2 GFLOPS198.2 GFLOPS279.3 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon RX 580342.3 GFLOPS88.7 GFLOPS223.9 GFLOPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti336.8 GFLOPS166.5 GFLOPS266.4 GFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P6000322.7 GFLOPS133.4 GFLOPS252.6 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100299.6 GFLOPS81.7 GFLOPS201.6 GFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P5000225.5 GFLOPS84.8 GFLOPS180.8 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100148.7 GFLOPS58.9 GFLOPS114.9 GFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P4000133.7 GFLOPS87 GFLOPS113.9 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100113.6 GFLOPS33.2 GFLOPS84.6 GFLOPS
NVIDIA Quadro P200089.1 GFLOPS54.3 GFLOPS83.7 GFLOPS
AMD Radeon Pro WX 310066.4 GFLOPS33.4 GFLOPS50.1 GFLOPS
GEMM = General Matrix Multiply; FFT = Fast Fourier Transform; N-Body = N-Body Simulation.

Once again, the Vega 64 proved one of the mightiest options for the double-precision test, and it battles nicely with the (technically) faster GTX 1080 Ti. For single-precision, a single TITAN Xp proves best, but the more, the merrier: the scaling seen is fantastic.

Rob Williams

Rob founded SmartKevin in 2005 to be an 'Advocate of the consumer', focusing on fair reviews and keeping people apprised of news in the tech world. Catering to both enthusiasts and businesses alike; from desktop gaming to professional workstations, and all the supporting software.

twitter icon facebook icon googleplus icon instagram icon