Radeon Pro Vega 20 vs RX 9060
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 9060 with Radeon Pro Vega 20, including specs and performance data.
RX 9060 outperforms Pro 20 by a whopping 238% 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 | 105 | 449 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 24.89 | 9.71 |
| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Navi 44 | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 August 2025 (1 year ago) | 14 November 2018 (7 years ago) |
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 | 1792 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1700 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2990 MHz | 1283 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 29,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 132 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 334.9 | 102.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 21.43 TFLOPS | 3.284 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2518 MHz | 740 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 322.3 GB/s | 189.4 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 | 200−210 | 61
−69.5%
|
| 4K | 130−140 | 41
−68.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27 | 24−27 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Battlefield 5 | 74 | 74 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 40 | 40 |
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Valorant | 100−110 | 100−110 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Battlefield 5 | 63 | 63 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Dota 2 | 85 | 85 |
| Far Cry 5 | 37 | 37 |
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50 | 50 |
| Valorant | 100−110 | 100−110 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60 | 60 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Dota 2 | 78 | 78 |
| Far Cry 5 | 37 | 37 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31 | 31 |
| Valorant | 100−110 | 100−110 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 70−75 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Valorant | 120−130 | 120−130 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20 | 18−20 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30 | 27−30 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Valorant | 60−65 | 60−65 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Dota 2 | 41 | 41 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 12−14 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 12−14 |
This is how RX 9060 and Pro Vega 20 compete in popular games:
- RX 9060 is 228% faster in 1080p
- RX 9060 is 217% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 42.18 | 12.47 |
| Recency | 5 August 2025 | 14 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 132 Watt | 100 Watt |
RX 9060 has a 238% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71% more advanced lithography process.
Pro Vega 20, on the other hand, has 24% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 9060 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 20 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 9060 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 20 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
