Radeon 620 vs Pro Vega 16
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 16 with Radeon 620, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 16 outperforms Radeon 620 by a whopping 437% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 368 | 814 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.05 | 0.34 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega Mobile | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 November 2018 (5 years ago) | 12 August 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Current price | $511 | $67 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro Vega 16 has 2562% better value for money than Radeon 620.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 384 |
| Boost clock speed | 1190 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 76.16 | 24.58 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon Pro Vega 16 and Radeon 620 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | HBM2 | DDR3, GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2400 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 14.4 GB/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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Pro Vega 16 outperforms 620 by 437% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Pro Vega 16 outperforms 620 by 436% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Pro Vega 16 outperforms 620 by 348% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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
+442%
| 12−14
−442%
|
| 4K | 38
+443%
| 7−8
−443%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
+429%
|
16−18
−429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 220−230
+437%
|
40−45
−437%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
+429%
|
16−18
−429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 220−230
+437%
|
40−45
−437%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 90−95
+429%
|
16−18
−429%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 100−105
+400%
|
20−22
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+400%
|
10−12
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+431%
|
16−18
−431%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
This is how Pro Vega 16 and Radeon 620 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 is 442% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 16 is 443% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.45 | 2.32 |
| Recency | 15 November 2018 | 12 August 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 620 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
