Radeon RX 9070 vs Pro V620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro V620 with Radeon RX 9070, including specs and performance data.

Pro V620
2021
32 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
63.66
+4.6%

Pro V620 outperforms RX 9070 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3740
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data65.76
Power efficiency16.4221.41
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameNavi 21Navi 48
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 November 2021 (4 years ago)6 March 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores46083584
Core clock speed1825 MHz1330 MHz
Boost clock speed2200 MHz2520 MHz
Number of transistors26,800 million53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt220 Watt
Texture fill rate633.6564.5
Floating-point processing powerno data36.13 TFLOPS
ROPs128128
TMUs288224
Tensor Coresno data112
Ray Tracing Cores7256
L0 Cache1.1 MB896 KB
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MB8 MB
L3 Cache128 MB64 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 4.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s644.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.86.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan1.41.3
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.

Pro V620 63.66
+4.6%
RX 9070 60.88

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.

Pro V620 26519
+4.6%
Samples: 3
RX 9070 25361
Samples: 2914

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 HD210−220
+4.5%
201
−4.5%
1440p110−120
+0.9%
109
−0.9%
4K70−75
+4.5%
67
−4.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.73
1440pno data5.04
4Kno data8.19

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−310
+0%
300−310
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−310
+0%
300−310
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Far Cry 5 299
+0%
299
+0%
Fortnite 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−310
+0%
300−310
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Far Cry 5 289
+0%
289
+0%
Fortnite 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 438
+0%
438
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Far Cry 5 274
+0%
274
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 240
+0%
240
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 244
+0%
244
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 184
+0%
184
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 154
+0%
154
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 133
+0%
133
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

This is how Pro V620 and RX 9070 compete in popular games:

  • Pro V620 is 4% faster in 1080p
  • Pro V620 is 1% faster in 1440p
  • Pro V620 is 4% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 63.66 60.88
Recency 4 November 2021 6 March 2025
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 220 Watt

Pro V620 has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 9070, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 36% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro V620 and Radeon RX 9070.

Be aware that Radeon Pro V620 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 9070 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.


5 3 votes

Rate Radeon Pro V620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1004 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9070 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro V620 or Radeon RX 9070, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.