Radeon RX Vega 64 vs RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation

Aggregate performance score

We've compared RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation with Radeon RX Vega 64, including specs and performance data.

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation
2025, $8,565
96 GB GDDR7, 600 Watt
89.79
+172%

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation outperforms RX Vega 64 by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking4182
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.6616.62
Power efficiency11.668.73
ArchitectureBlackwell 2.0 (2025−2026)GCN 5.0 (2017−2019)
GPU code nameGB202Vega 10
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date18 March 2025 (1 year ago)7 August 2017 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$8,565 $499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX Vega 64 has 525% better value for money than RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores240644096
Core clock speed1590 MHz1247 MHz
Boost clock speed2617 MHz1546 MHz
Number of transistors92.2 billion12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)600 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate1,968.0395.8
Floating-point processing powerno data12.66 TFLOPS
ROPs19264
TMUs752256
Tensor Cores752no data
Ray Tracing Cores188no data
L1 Cache23.5 MB1 MB
L2 Cache128 MB4 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 5.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length304 mm279 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 16-pin2x 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 typeGDDR7HBM2
Maximum RAM amount96 GB8 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz945 MHz
Memory bandwidth1.79 TB/s483.8 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort 2.1b1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.96.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.41.1.125
CUDA12.0-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation 89.79
+172%
RX Vega 64 33.06

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.

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation 37565
+172%
Samples: 289
RX Vega 64 13830
Samples: 3527

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 HD300−350
+159%
116
1440p200−21077
−61.5%
4K130−14051
−60.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p28.554.30
+84.9%
1440p42.836.48
+84.9%
4K65.889.78
+85.1%
  • RX Vega 64 has 85% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX Vega 64 has 85% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX Vega 64 has 85% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Hogwarts Legacy 75−80 75−80
Resident Evil 4 Remake 85−90 85−90

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 161 161
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Far Cry 5 110 110
Fortnite 150−160 150−160
Forza Horizon 4 167 167
Hogwarts Legacy 75−80 75−80
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 315 315

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 146 146
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Dota 2 150 150
Far Cry 5 104 104
Fortnite 150−160 150−160
Forza Horizon 4 158 158
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120 110−120
Hogwarts Legacy 75−80 75−80
Metro Exodus 73 73
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 132 132
Valorant 293 293

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 139 139
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 75−80
Dota 2 138 138
Far Cry 5 98 98
Forza Horizon 4 128 128
Hogwarts Legacy 75−80 75−80
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 77
Valorant 140 140

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 80−85 80−85
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240 230−240
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70 65−70
Metro Exodus 46 46
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 263 263

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 35−40
Far Cry 5 81 81
Forza Horizon 4 98 98
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40 35−40
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65 60−65

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 85−90 85−90

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75 70−75
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 21−24
Metro Exodus 46 46
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48 48
Valorant 205 205

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 59 59
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 16−18
Dota 2 96 96
Far Cry 5 44 44
Forza Horizon 4 66 66
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 21−24
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 40−45

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 40−45

This is how RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation and RX Vega 64 compete in popular games:

  • RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation is 159% faster in 1080p
  • RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation is 160% faster in 1440p
  • RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation is 155% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 89.79 33.06
Recency 18 March 2025 7 August 2017
Maximum RAM amount 96 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 5 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 600 Watt 295 Watt

RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation has a 172% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 64% more advanced lithography process.

RX Vega 64, on the other hand, has 51% lower power consumption.

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 64 in performance tests.

Be aware that RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


No user ratings yet.

Rate RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 892 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Workstation or Radeon RX Vega 64, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.