Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 and Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
32.13
+22.1%

Pro Vega 56 outperforms RTX 3000 Mobile by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking175213
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation45.78no data
Power efficiency10.5622.69
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU106
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores35842304
Core clock speed1138 MHz945 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz1380 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate280.0198.7
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs224144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s448.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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. 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 56 32.13
+22.1%
RTX 3000 Mobile 26.31

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.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+22.1%
RTX 3000 Mobile 10116

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro Vega 56 25589
+28.7%
RTX 3000 Mobile 19879

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.

Pro Vega 56 17797
+19.9%
RTX 3000 Mobile 14842

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 HD100
−3%
103
+3%
4K61
−44.3%
88
+44.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.99no data
4K6.54no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+28.6%
45−50
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+24.1%
50−55
−24.1%
Elden Ring 100−110
+25.3%
85−90
−25.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+15%
80−85
−15%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+28.6%
45−50
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+24.1%
50−55
−24.1%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+28.4%
110−120
−28.4%
Metro Exodus 80−85
−12.3%
91
+12.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+15.8%
55−60
−15.8%
Valorant 120−130
+21.9%
100−110
−21.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+15%
80−85
−15%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+28.6%
45−50
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+24.1%
50−55
−24.1%
Dota 2 36
−22.2%
44
+22.2%
Elden Ring 100−110
+25.3%
85−90
−25.3%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+2.3%
86
−2.3%
Fortnite 150−160
+15.4%
130−140
−15.4%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+28.4%
110−120
−28.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+18%
85−90
−18%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+88.4%
43
−88.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+66.4%
110
−66.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+15.8%
55−60
−15.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+26.7%
85−90
−26.7%
Valorant 120−130
+21.9%
100−110
−21.9%
World of Tanks 270−280
+4.9%
260−270
−4.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+15%
80−85
−15%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+28.6%
45−50
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+24.1%
50−55
−24.1%
Dota 2 102
−18.6%
121
+18.6%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+11.4%
75−80
−11.4%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+28.4%
110−120
−28.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+13%
160−170
−13%
Valorant 120−130
+21.9%
100−110
−21.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 55−60
+26.7%
45−50
−26.7%
Elden Ring 60−65
+29.8%
45−50
−29.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+26.7%
45−50
−26.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
World of Tanks 200−210
+19.7%
170−180
−19.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+17%
50−55
−17%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+30.4%
21−24
−30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+30.4%
21−24
−30.4%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+29.5%
75−80
−29.5%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+27.1%
70−75
−27.1%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+20%
60−65
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+33.3%
35−40
−33.3%
Valorant 90−95
+29.2%
70−75
−29.2%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
Dota 2 55−60
+28.3%
45−50
−28.3%
Elden Ring 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+28.3%
45−50
−28.3%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+30%
20−22
−30%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+24.7%
80−85
−24.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+17.6%
16−18
−17.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+28.3%
45−50
−28.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+28.6%
27−30
−28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Dota 2 96
+9.1%
88
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Fortnite 40−45
+30.3%
30−35
−30.3%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+24.4%
40−45
−24.4%
Valorant 45−50
+34.3%
35−40
−34.3%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 3% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 44% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 88% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3000 Mobile is 22% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 59 tests (94%)
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.13 26.31
Recency 14 August 2017 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 80 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 22.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 162.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile in performance tests.


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 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

Other comparisons

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.


3.5 90 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 317 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 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.