Polaris 30 vs Radeon Pro Vega 20

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking352not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation14.37no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2021)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega MobilePolaris 30
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date15 November 2018 (5 years ago)no data
Current price$360 $235

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores12802304
Core clock speed815 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1283 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Wattno data
Texture fill rate102.6no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon Pro Vega 20 and Polaris 30 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeHBM2no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width1024 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1480 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth189.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.3

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm

We couldn't decide between Radeon Pro Vega 20 and Polaris 30. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 20 is a mobile workstation card while Polaris 30 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20
Radeon Pro Vega 20
AMD Polaris 30
Polaris 30

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 84 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 20 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 8 votes

Rate Polaris 30 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.