Radeon RX 5700 vs Pro Vega II Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II Duo with Radeon RX 5700, including specs and performance data.
RX 5700 outperforms Pro II Duo by a minimal 4% 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 | 184 | 172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.14 | 29.42 |
| Power efficiency | 5.36 | 14.69 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (7 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,399 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5700 has 1275% better value for money than Pro Vega II Duo.
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 ×2 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1465 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 1725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 440.3 ×2 | 248.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.09 TFLOPS ×2 | 7.949 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 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 | Apple MPX | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 268 mm |
| Width | Quad-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB ×2 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1.02 TB/s ×2 | 448.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
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 | 100−110 | 114
+14%
|
| 1440p | 65−70 | 69
+6.2%
|
| 4K | 40−45 | 43
+7.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 43.99 | 3.06
+93%
|
| 1440p | 67.68 | 5.06
+92.5%
|
| 4K | 109.98 | 8.12
+92.6%
|
- RX 5700 has 93% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5700 has 93% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5700 has 93% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 159 | 159 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344 | 344 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 84 | 84 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 131 | 131 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 121 | 121 |
| Battlefield 5 | 115 | 115 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 307 | 307 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75 | 75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 156 | 156 |
| Fortnite | 166 | 166 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132 | 132 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 151 | 151 |
| Valorant | 294 | 294 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 70 | 70 |
| Battlefield 5 | 105 | 105 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154 | 154 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67 | 67 |
| Dota 2 | 156 | 156 |
| Far Cry 5 | 144 | 144 |
| Fortnite | 140 | 140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130 | 130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137 | 137 |
| Metro Exodus | 87 | 87 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 144 | 144 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 147 | 147 |
| Valorant | 291 | 291 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 97 | 97 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58 | 58 |
| Dota 2 | 146 | 146 |
| Far Cry 5 | 135 | 135 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118 | 118 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139 | 139 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91 | 91 |
| Valorant | 160 | 160 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 118 | 118 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87 | 87 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 240−250 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72 | 72 |
| Metro Exodus | 51 | 51 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 277 | 277 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 81 | 81 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36 | 36 |
| Far Cry 5 | 93 | 93 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 103 | 103 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65 | 60−65 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 77 | 77 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25 | 25 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72 | 72 |
| Metro Exodus | 31 | 31 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48 | 48 |
| Valorant | 231 | 231 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 54 | 54 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15 | 15 |
| Dota 2 | 100 | 100 |
| Far Cry 5 | 47 | 47 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70 | 70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 59 | 59 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 39 | 39 |
This is how Pro Vega II Duo and RX 5700 compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 is 14% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 is 6% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 is 8% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.72 | 33.95 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 180 Watt |
Pro Vega II Duo has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 5700, on the other hand, has a 4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, and 62% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro Vega II Duo and Radeon RX 5700.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 5700 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.
