Radeon Pro Vega II Duo vs Quadro FX 5600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 5600 and Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro II Duo outperforms FX 5600 by a whopping 2540% 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 | 1090 | 178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.40 |
| Power efficiency | 0.56 | 5.31 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G80 | Vega 20 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 March 2007 (19 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $4,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FX 5600 and Pro Vega II Duo have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 128 | 4096 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 681 million | 13,230 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 475 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 440.3 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3456 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 24 | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | 32 | 256 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 96 KB | 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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 254 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-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 | GDDR3 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 4096 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s ×2 |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 32.74 |
| Recency | 5 March 2007 | 3 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 475 Watt |
FX 5600 has 178% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega II Duo, on the other hand, has a 2540% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 2033% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1186% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 5600 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.
