Radeon RX 590 vs Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with Radeon RX 590, including specs and performance data.
Pro 56 outperforms RX 590 by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 227 | 290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 94 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.79 | 13.86 |
| Power efficiency | 10.69 | 9.87 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Polaris 30 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (9 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro Vega 56 has 14% better value for money than RX 590.
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 cores | 3584 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 1469 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 222.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | 7.119 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 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 type | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 HD | 96 | 102
+6.3%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+25%
| 60 |
| 4K | 57
+50%
| 38 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16 | 2.74
+34.2%
|
| 1440p | 5.32 | 4.65
+12.6%
|
| 4K | 7.00
+4.7%
| 7.34 |
- RX 590 has 34% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 590 has 13% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Pro Vega 56 and RX 590 have nearly equal cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+35.5%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+28.9%
|
120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+34.7%
|
45−50 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+35.5%
|
60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 133
+19.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+28.9%
|
120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+34.7%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+12.9%
|
85 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 139
+1.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 120
+4.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 120
+1.7%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 301
+59.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+35.5%
|
60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 111 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+28.9%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+9.2%
|
250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+34.7%
|
45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 107 | 110−120
+11.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+21.5%
|
79 |
| Far Cry 6 | 80−85
+31.3%
|
60−65 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 138
+0.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+1.8%
|
113 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+31.6%
|
79 |
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+28.8%
|
52 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+9.3%
|
108 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+31.8%
|
88 |
| Valorant | 180−190 | 287
+51.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+11%
|
100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+34.7%
|
45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 102 | 110−120
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+29.7%
|
74 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+26.4%
|
91 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+42.2%
|
83 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+25.5%
|
51 |
| Valorant | 180−190
+71.8%
|
110 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+42.7%
|
96 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+39.6%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+27.2%
|
160−170 |
| Far Cry 6 | 50−55
+37.8%
|
35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+39%
|
40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+32.3%
|
31 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 220−230 | 232
+5.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+25%
|
60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+32.7%
|
50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+34.5%
|
55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+38.9%
|
35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+37%
|
50−55 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24 |
| Far Cry 6 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+41.5%
|
41 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+36.8%
|
19 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+31.3%
|
32 |
| Valorant | 170−180
+53.1%
|
113 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+15%
|
40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+40.9%
|
21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10 |
| Dota 2 | 96
+26.3%
|
75−80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+50%
|
24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+15.2%
|
46 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 35
+2.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+17.2%
|
29 |
This is how Pro Vega 56 and RX 590 compete in popular games:
- RX 590 is 6% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 56 is 25% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 56 is 50% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 72% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 590 is 59% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 performs better in 52 tests (81%)
- RX 590 performs better in 11 tests (17%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.83 | 22.17 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 15 November 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 175 Watt |
Pro Vega 56 has a 30% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 590, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 17% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 590 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 590 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.
