GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega II

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II with GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega II
2019, $2,199
32 GB HBM2, 475 Watt
37.49

RTX 4070 Mobile outperforms Pro II by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking14183
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.55no data
Power efficiency6.1131.46
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameVega 20AD106
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 June 2019 (7 years ago)3 January 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,199 no data

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 cores40964608
Core clock speed1574 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speed1720 MHz1695 MHz
Number of transistors13,230 million22,900 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)475 Watt115 Watt
Texture fill rate440.3244.1
Floating-point processing power14.09 TFLOPS15.62 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs256144
Tensor Coresno data144
Ray Tracing Coresno data36
L1 Cache1 MB4.5 MB
L2 Cache4 MB32 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfaceApple MPXPCIe 4.0 x8
WidthQuad-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB8 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed806 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth825.3 GB/s256.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x ThunderboltPortable Device Dependent
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 Model6.76.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA-8.9
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 II 37.49
RTX 4070 Mobile 46.74
+24.7%

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 II 15618
Samples: 8
RTX 4070 Mobile 19474
+24.7%
Samples: 13498

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 HD95−100
−30.5%
124
+30.5%
1440p55−60
−27.3%
70
+27.3%
4K30−35
−43.3%
43
+43.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p23.15no data
1440p39.98no data
4K73.30no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 188
+0%
188
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 135
+0%
135
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 140
+0%
140
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 172
+0%
172
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 115
+0%
115
+0%
Far Cry 5 139
+0%
139
+0%
Fortnite 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 216
+0%
216
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 95
+0%
95
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 97
+0%
97
+0%
Dota 2 178
+0%
178
+0%
Far Cry 5 133
+0%
133
+0%
Fortnite 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 195
+0%
195
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 144
+0%
144
+0%
Metro Exodus 111
+0%
111
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 229
+0%
229
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 87
+0%
87
+0%
Dota 2 167
+0%
167
+0%
Far Cry 5 123
+0%
123
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+0%
116
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 94
+0%
94
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 90
+0%
90
+0%
Metro Exodus 69
+0%
69
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+0%
54
+0%
Far Cry 5 112
+0%
112
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89
+0%
89
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 90
+0%
90
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Dota 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Far Cry 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

This is how Pro Vega II and RTX 4070 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4070 Mobile is 31% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4070 Mobile is 27% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4070 Mobile is 43% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 37.49 46.74
Recency 3 June 2019 3 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 475 Watt 115 Watt

Pro Vega II has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 4070 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 25% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 313% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega II in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4 81 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2707 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega II or GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.