Radeon RX Vega M GL vs RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Radeon RX Vega M GL, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M GL outperforms 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by an impressive 67% 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 | 660 | 512 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 29.29 | 11.26 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | Polaris 22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (6 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 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 | 384 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 931 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1011 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 80.88 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.588 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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 | no data | IGP |
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 | no data | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 179.2 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 20
−50%
| 30−35
+50%
|
| 1440p | 24
−45.8%
| 35−40
+45.8%
|
| 4K | 18
−50%
| 27−30
+50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
−63.5%
|
85−90
+63.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
−61.8%
|
55−60
+61.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18
−50%
|
27−30
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Fortnite | 33
−72.7%
|
55−60
+72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−61.9%
|
30−35
+61.9%
|
| Valorant | 97
−64.9%
|
160−170
+64.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
−157%
|
140−150
+157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−64.3%
|
65−70
+64.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 22
−159%
|
55−60
+159%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−61.9%
|
30−35
+61.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
−56.3%
|
24−27
+56.3%
|
| Valorant | 73
−64.4%
|
120−130
+64.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 19
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−72.5%
|
65−70
+72.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−61.9%
|
30−35
+61.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−127%
|
24−27
+127%
|
| Valorant | 19
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−62.9%
|
55−60
+62.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−59.1%
|
70−75
+59.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−57.9%
|
60−65
+57.9%
|
| Valorant | 49
−63.3%
|
80−85
+63.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Valorant | 22
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−84.2%
|
35−40
+84.2%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and RX Vega M GL compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL is 50% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GL is 46% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GL is 50% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 267% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega M GL surpassed RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in all 17 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.68 | 9.46 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 333% lower power consumption.
RX Vega M GL, on the other hand, has a 67% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
