Radeon PRO W7900 vs RX Vega 64

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 64 with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 64
2017, $499
8 GB HBM2, 295 Watt
33.06
PRO W7900
2023, $3,999
48 GB GDDR6, 295 Watt
66.18
+100%

PRO W7900 outperforms RX Vega 64 by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking18027
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation16.617.42
Power efficiency8.7317.47
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)RDNA 3 (2023−2025)
GPU code nameVega 10Navi 31
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date7 August 2017 (9 years ago)26 May 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX Vega 64 has 124% better value for money than PRO W7900.

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 cores40966144
Core clock speed1247 MHz1760 MHz
Boost clock speed1546 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million57.7 billion
Manufacturing process technology14 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)295 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate395.8958.1
Floating-point processing power12.66 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64192
TMUs256384
Ray Tracing Coresno data96
L0 Cacheno data3 MB
L1 Cache1 MB3 MB
L2 Cache4 MB6 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length279 mm280 mm
Width2-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB48 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed945 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth483.8 GB/s864.0 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, 3x DisplayPort3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
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 Model6.46.9
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.4

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.

RX Vega 64 33.06
PRO W7900 66.18
+100%

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.

RX Vega 64 13830
Samples: 3507
PRO W7900 27689
+100%
Samples: 86

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 HD116230−240
+98.3%
1440p77
−48.7%
150−160
4K51
−49%
100−110

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.30
+75.3%
17.39
1440p6.48
+75.7%
26.66
4K9.78
+75.5%
39.99
  • RX Vega 64 has 75% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX Vega 64 has 76% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX Vega 64 has 76% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 95−100 190−200
+91.9%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 350−400
+86.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 150−160
+94.8%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 95−100 190−200
+91.9%
Battlefield 5 161 300−310
+86.3%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 350−400
+86.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 150−160
+94.8%
Far Cry 5 110 220−230
+100%
Fortnite 150−160 300−310
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 167 300−310
+79.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 270−280
+100%
Valorant 315 600−650
+90.5%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 95−100 190−200
+91.9%
Battlefield 5 146 290−300
+98.6%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190 350−400
+86.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 550−600
+98.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 150−160
+94.8%
Dota 2 150 300−310
+100%
Far Cry 5 104 200−210
+92.3%
Far Cry 6 95−100 190−200
+95.9%
Fortnite 150−160 300−310
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 158 300−310
+89.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120 230−240
+98.3%
Metro Exodus 73 140−150
+91.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 270−280
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 132 260−270
+97%
Valorant 293 550−600
+87.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 139 270−280
+94.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80 150−160
+94.8%
Dota 2 138 270−280
+95.7%
Far Cry 5 98 190−200
+93.9%
Forza Horizon 4 128 250−260
+95.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 270−280
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 150−160
+94.8%
Valorant 140 280−290
+100%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 300−310
+100%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 80−85 160−170
+97.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240 450−500
+91.5%
Far Cry 6 60−65 120−130
+96.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70 130−140
+91.2%
Metro Exodus 46 90−95
+95.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 350−400
+100%
Valorant 263 500−550
+90.1%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 170−180
+91%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 70−75
+89.2%
Far Cry 5 81 160−170
+97.5%
Forza Horizon 4 98 190−200
+93.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65 120−130
+96.7%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 85−90 170−180
+95.4%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 27−30 50−55
+85.2%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 75−80
+97.4%
Far Cry 6 24−27 45−50
+87.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75 140−150
+100%
Metro Exodus 46 90−95
+95.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48 95−100
+97.9%
Valorant 205 400−450
+95.1%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 59 110−120
+86.4%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 75−80
+97.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 30−33
+76.5%
Dota 2 96 190−200
+97.9%
Far Cry 5 44 85−90
+93.2%
Forza Horizon 4 66 130−140
+97%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 80−85
+90.5%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 80−85
+95.1%

This is how RX Vega 64 and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7900 is 98% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7900 is 95% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7900 is 96% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.06 66.18
Recency 7 August 2017 26 May 2023
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm

PRO W7900 has a 100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 64% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 64 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation 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.


4.2 892 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 90 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega 64 or Radeon PRO W7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.