GeForce RTX 3080 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 with GeForce RTX 3080, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
30.93
RTX 3080
2020, $699
10 GB GDDR6X, 320 Watt
59.95
+93.8%

RTX 3080 outperforms Pro 64 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking20844
Place by popularitynot in top-10059
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data35.82
Power efficiency9.5914.52
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameVega 10GA102
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date27 June 2017 (9 years ago)1 September 2020 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$699

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 cores40968704
Core clock speed1250 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1710 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt320 Watt
Texture fill rate345.6465.1
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS29.77 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs256272
Tensor Coresno data272
Ray Tracing Coresno data68
L1 Cache1 MB8.5 MB
L2 Cache4 MB5 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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm285 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 12-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 typeHBM2GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount16 GB10 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit320 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1188 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s760.3 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, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.2
CUDA-8.5
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 Vega 64 30.93
RTX 3080 59.95
+93.8%

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 Vega 64 12886
Samples: 28
RTX 3080 24974
+93.8%
Samples: 33250

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 64 71094
RTX 3080 167014
+135%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 64 74174
RTX 3080 145176
+95.7%

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 HD85−90
−48.5%
165
1440p60−65
−51.2%
123
4K40−4585
+113%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.24
1440pno data5.68
4Kno data8.22

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 307 307
Counter-Strike 2 290−300 290−300
Cyberpunk 2077 150−160 150−160
Resident Evil 4 Remake 253 253

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 239 239
Battlefield 5 172 172
Counter-Strike 2 290−300 290−300
Cyberpunk 2077 138 138
Far Cry 5 157 157
Fortnite 280−290 280−290
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 230−240
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 147 147
Battlefield 5 156 156
Counter-Strike 2 290−300 290−300
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 134 134
Dota 2 147 147
Far Cry 5 150 150
Fortnite 280−290 280−290
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 230−240
Grand Theft Auto V 147 147
Metro Exodus 128 128
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 303 303
Valorant 300−350 300−350

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 145 145
Cyberpunk 2077 131 131
Dota 2 135 135
Far Cry 5 140 140
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 230−240
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 149 149
Valorant 268 268

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 280−290 280−290

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 180−190 180−190
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 450−500 450−500
Grand Theft Auto V 112 112
Metro Exodus 95 95
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 400−450 400−450

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 124 124
Cyberpunk 2077 86 86
Far Cry 5 135 135
Forza Horizon 4 190−200 190−200
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150 140−150

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 50−55 50−55
Counter-Strike 2 80−85 80−85
Grand Theft Auto V 143 143
Metro Exodus 65 65
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 115 115
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 91 91
Counter-Strike 2 80−85 80−85
Cyberpunk 2077 43 43
Dota 2 129 129
Far Cry 5 94 94
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 140−150
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how Pro Vega 64 and RTX 3080 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3080 is 94% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3080 is 105% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3080 is 113% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.93 59.95
Recency 27 June 2017 1 September 2020
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 10 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 320 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 22% lower power consumption.

RTX 3080, on the other hand, has a 94% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 64 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3080 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.


3.8 23 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 8550 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3080 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 64 or GeForce RTX 3080, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.