Radeon RX 470 vs Pro Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Duo with Radeon RX 470, including specs and performance data.
Pro Duo outperforms RX 470 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 268 | 273 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 42 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.03 | 17.80 |
| Power efficiency | 4.17 | 12.04 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Capsaicin | Ellesmere |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 4 August 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 470 has 254% better value for money than Pro 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 | 4096 ×2 | 2048 |
| Compute units | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 926 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1206 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 ×2 | 154.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 | 4.94 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 128 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 277 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 3x 8-pin | 1x 6-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 type | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s ×2 | 211.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 65−70
−6.2%
| 69
+6.2%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−8.6%
| 38
+8.6%
|
| 4K | 35−40
−5.7%
| 37
+5.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 23.06
−789%
| 2.59
+789%
|
| 1440p | 42.83
−809%
| 4.71
+809%
|
| 4K | 42.83
−785%
| 4.84
+785%
|
- RX 470 has 789% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 470 has 809% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 470 has 785% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
This is how Pro Duo and RX 470 compete in popular games:
- RX 470 is 6% faster in 1080p
- RX 470 is 9% faster in 1440p
- RX 470 is 6% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.03 | 20.81 |
| Recency | 26 April 2016 | 4 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 120 Watt |
Pro Duo has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 470, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 191.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro Duo and Radeon RX 470.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Duo is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 470 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
