Radeon RX 580 vs Pro Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 with Radeon RX 580, including specs and performance data.
Pro 64 outperforms RX 580 by a considerable 47% 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 | 208 | 312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 3 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 14.58 |
| Power efficiency | 9.59 | 8.84 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (9 years ago) | 18 April 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4096 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1257 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1340 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 185 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 345.6 | 193.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.06 TFLOPS | 6.175 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 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 | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | IGP | 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 | 16 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 |
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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
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.
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 | 140−150 | 97
−30.7%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
+39.5%
| 43 |
| 4K | 50−55
+35.1%
| 37 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.36 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.33 |
| 4K | no data | 6.19 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50 | 45−50 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Battlefield 5 | 124 | 124 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 83 | 83 |
| Fortnite | 153 | 153 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108 | 108 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85 | 85 |
| Valorant | 150−160 | 150−160 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Battlefield 5 | 102 | 102 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 76 | 76 |
| Fortnite | 106 | 106 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 101 | 101 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77 | 77 |
| Metro Exodus | 48 | 48 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70 | 70 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72 | 72 |
| Valorant | 150−160 | 150−160 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 93 | 93 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 71 | 71 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82 | 82 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49 | 49 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44 | 44 |
| Valorant | 150−160 | 150−160 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80 | 80 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Metro Exodus | 28 | 28 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 170−180 | 170−180 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35 | 30−35 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 57 | 57 |
| Metro Exodus | 18 | 18 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27 | 27 |
| Valorant | 110−120 | 110−120 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 37 | 37 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 26 | 26 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41 | 41 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18 | 18 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 23 | 23 |
This is how Pro Vega 64 and RX 580 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 64 is 44% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 64 is 40% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 64 is 35% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.79 | 20.99 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 18 April 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 185 Watt |
Pro Vega 64 has a 47% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 580, on the other hand, has 26% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 580 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.
