GeForce RTX 5060 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with GeForce RTX 5060, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 56 outperforms RTX 5060 by an impressive 52% 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 | 187 | 276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 45.76 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.41 | 9.58 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GB206 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | March 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3584 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 2280 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 299.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | 19.18 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 224 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-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 | HBM2 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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
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.
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 | 96
+60%
| 60−65
−60%
|
| 4K | 57
+62.9%
| 35−40
−62.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16 | no data |
| 4K | 7.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+51.8%
|
110−120
−51.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+59.5%
|
40−45
−59.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+69.2%
|
35−40
−69.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+36.6%
|
80−85
−36.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+51.8%
|
110−120
−51.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+59.5%
|
40−45
−59.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+48.5%
|
65−70
−48.5%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+32.7%
|
100−110
−32.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+46.3%
|
80−85
−46.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+50.8%
|
60−65
−50.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+69.2%
|
35−40
−69.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+60%
|
75−80
−60%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.1%
|
140−150
−30.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+36.6%
|
80−85
−36.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+51.8%
|
110−120
−51.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+16.6%
|
230−240
−16.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+59.5%
|
40−45
−59.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+52.9%
|
70−75
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+48.5%
|
65−70
−48.5%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+32.7%
|
100−110
−32.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+46.3%
|
80−85
−46.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+50.8%
|
60−65
−50.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+41.9%
|
70−75
−41.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+69.2%
|
35−40
−69.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+58.1%
|
40−45
−58.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+60%
|
75−80
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+107%
|
55−60
−107%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.1%
|
140−150
−30.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+36.6%
|
80−85
−36.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+59.5%
|
40−45
−59.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+56.9%
|
65−70
−56.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+48.5%
|
65−70
−48.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+46.3%
|
80−85
−46.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 65−70
+69.2%
|
35−40
−69.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+60%
|
75−80
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+14.3%
|
55−60
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+30.1%
|
140−150
−30.1%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+32.7%
|
100−110
−32.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+69%
|
40−45
−69%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+45.5%
|
140−150
−45.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+67.6%
|
30−35
−67.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+61.5%
|
24−27
−61.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.2%
|
170−180
−1.2%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+23.9%
|
180−190
−23.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+44.6%
|
55−60
−44.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+62.8%
|
40−45
−62.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+62%
|
50−55
−62%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+71%
|
30−35
−71%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+63%
|
45−50
−63%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+63.9%
|
35−40
−63.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+44.8%
|
27−30
−44.8%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+59.3%
|
110−120
−59.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+60%
|
60−65
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+75%
|
20−22
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+75%
|
20−22
−75%
|
This is how Pro Vega 56 and RTX 5060 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 is 60% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 56 is 63% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 107% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro Vega 56 surpassed RTX 5060 in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.90 | 20.32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 150 Watt |
Pro Vega 56 has a 52.1% higher aggregate performance score.
RTX 5060, on the other hand, has a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 5060 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 5060 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.
