Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 with Radeon Pro Vega 48, including specs and performance data.
Pro 48 outperforms RX Vega 11 by a whopping 440% 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 | 694 | 245 |
| Place by popularity | 98 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 15.52 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Raven | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 19 March 2019 (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 | 704 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1240 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 54.56 | 249.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.971 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 44 | 192 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 786 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 402.4 GB/s |
| 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 | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
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 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1.125 |
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 | 28
−81.3%
| 150−160 |
| 1440p | 6
−80%
| 30−35 |
| 4K | 12 | 60−65
+400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 12−14 | 60−65
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 120−130
+422%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 50−55
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 12−14 | 60−65
+400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31 | 160−170
+416%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 120−130
+422%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 50−55
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 100−105
+426%
|
| Fortnite | 86 | 450−500
+423%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38 | 200−210
+426%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 100−105
+426%
|
| Valorant | 60−65 | 300−310
+392%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14 | 60−65
+400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26 | 140−150
+438%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 120−130
+422%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90 | 450−500
+423%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 50−55
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 46 | 240−250
+422%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18 | 95−100
+428%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 10−12 | 55−60
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 31 | 160−170
+416%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35 | 180−190
+414%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17 | 90−95
+429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9 | 45−50
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 100−105
+426%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14 | 75−80
+436%
|
| Valorant | 60−65 | 300−310
+392%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 25 | 130−140
+420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 50−55
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 42 | 220−230
+424%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17 | 90−95
+429%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29 | 150−160
+417%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 100−105
+426%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10 | 50−55
+400%
|
| Valorant | 60−65 | 300−310
+392%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33 | 160−170
+433%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 45−50
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40 | 210−220
+438%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 7−8 | 35−40
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 21−24
+425%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 21−24
+425%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40 | 190−200
+428%
|
| Valorant | 50−55 | 270−280
+429%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 27−30
+440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 45−50
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 60−65
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 35−40
+400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11 | 50−55
+400%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5 | 21−24
+425%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 27−30
+440%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 85−90
+431%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 10−11
+400%
|
| Valorant | 21−24 | 110−120
+400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8 | 40−45
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 17 | 90−95
+429%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 21−24
+425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12 | 60−65
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6 | 27−30
+440%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 27−30
+440%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and Pro Vega 48 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 48 is 436% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 48 is 400% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 48 is 400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.98 | 26.90 |
| Recency | 12 February 2018 | 19 March 2019 |
Pro Vega 48 has a 440% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon Pro Vega 48 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 11 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 48 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.
