Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs PRO W7600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7600 with Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), including specs and performance data.
PRO W7600 outperforms 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a whopping 374% 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 | 124 | 544 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 31 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 38.58 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 23.22 | 42.50 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | Vega |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (2 years ago) | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2048 | 512 |
| Boost clock speed | 2440 MHz | 2100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 312.3 | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 128 | 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 | no data |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 18 GB/s | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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 | 100−110
+355%
| 22
−355%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+369%
| 16
−369%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+350%
| 10
−350%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 7.99 | no data |
| 4K | 13.31 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how PRO W7600 and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:
- PRO W7600 is 355% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7600 is 369% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7600 is 350% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.31 | 8.30 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 7 January 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 15 Watt |
PRO W7600 has a 373.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has 766.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7600 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
