UHD Graphics vs Radeon Pro Vega II Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II Duo with UHD Graphics, including specs and performance data.
Pro II Duo outperforms Graphics by a whopping 537% 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 | 181 | 684 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 4 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.21 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.35 | 39.92 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Generation 11.0 (2019−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | Jasper Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (7 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,399 | no data |
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 ×2 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 10 nm+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 440.3 ×2 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.09 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | no data |
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 | Ring Bus |
| Width | Quad-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 1.02 TB/s ×2 | no data |
| 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 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | No outputs |
| 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 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.86 | 5.16 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 11 January 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 10 Watt |
Pro Vega II Duo has a 537% higher aggregate performance score, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
UHD Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 4650% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is a workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
