Radeon Pro Vega II Duo vs GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB with Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB outperforms Pro Vega II Duo by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 38 | 136 |
| Place by popularity | 86 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 63.93 | 7.17 |
| Power efficiency | 24.74 | 5.29 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | AD106 | Vega 20 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 May 2023 (1 year ago) | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $4,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 792% better value for money than Pro Vega II Duo.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4352 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 2310 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2535 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 22,900 million | 13,230 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 475 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 344.8 | 440.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 22.06 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 64 |
| TMUs | 136 | 256 |
| Tensor Cores | 136 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 34 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 240 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.9 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 174
+74%
| 100−110
−74%
|
| 1440p | 94
+70.9%
| 55−60
−70.9%
|
| 4K | 57
+62.9%
| 35−40
−62.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.87
+1434%
| 43.99
−1434%
|
| 1440p | 5.31
+1407%
| 79.98
−1407%
|
| 4K | 8.75
+1336%
| 125.69
−1336%
|
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 1434% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 1407% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 1336% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+71.3%
|
80−85
−71.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+71.3%
|
80−85
−71.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 344
+63.8%
|
210−220
−63.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+66.7%
|
90−95
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160
+68.4%
|
95−100
−68.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 100−110
+66.2%
|
65−70
−66.2%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+66.3%
|
160−170
−66.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+71.3%
|
80−85
−71.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 163
+63%
|
100−105
−63%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 139
+63.5%
|
85−90
−63.5%
|
| Fortnite | 230−240
+66.4%
|
140−150
−66.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 272
+70%
|
160−170
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+66.7%
|
90−95
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 163
+63%
|
100−105
−63%
|
| Metro Exodus | 127
+69.3%
|
75−80
−69.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+65.4%
|
130−140
−65.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 100−110
+66.2%
|
65−70
−66.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+74%
|
100−105
−74%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+66.3%
|
160−170
−66.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+64.1%
|
170−180
−64.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+67.1%
|
70−75
−67.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+71.3%
|
80−85
−71.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+70%
|
70−75
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 235
+67.9%
|
140−150
−67.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+66.7%
|
90−95
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+65.4%
|
130−140
−65.4%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+66.3%
|
160−170
−66.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 101
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+75%
|
100−105
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 350−400
+63.8%
|
240−250
−63.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+74%
|
50−55
−74%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+68.4%
|
95−100
−68.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 153
+70%
|
90−95
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+64.6%
|
65−70
−64.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 119
+70%
|
70−75
−70%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 96
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+65%
|
140−150
−65%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 101
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+74.2%
|
120−130
−74.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 101
+68.3%
|
60−65
−68.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+66.7%
|
45−50
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+75%
|
60−65
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+74.5%
|
55−60
−74.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+77.8%
|
45−50
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+62.5%
|
40−45
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+62.5%
|
80−85
−62.5%
|
This is how RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB and Pro Vega II Duo compete in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 74% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 71% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 63% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 56.87 | 35.01 |
| Recency | 18 May 2023 | 3 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 475 Watt |
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has a 62.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 187.9% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega II Duo, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega II Duo in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega II Duo 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.
