RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
32.02

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms Pro Vega 56 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking171109
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation44.71no data
Power efficiency10.5523.73
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameVega 10no data
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)21 March 2023 (1 year 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 cores35843072
Core clock speed1138 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1250 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt115 Watt (35 - 115 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate280.0no data
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs224no data

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 x16no data
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 GB8 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz16000 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/sno data
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 data
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.1.125-

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 32.02
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 39.43
+23.1%

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
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 15212
+23.1%

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
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 28910
+13%

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
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 21379
+20.1%

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 HD101
−18.8%
120−130
+18.8%
4K53
−22.6%
65−70
+22.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.95no data
4K7.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−20.4%
65−70
+20.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−15.9%
80−85
+15.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
−18.2%
65−70
+18.2%
Battlefield 5 100−110
−15.4%
120−130
+15.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
−23.1%
80−85
+23.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−20.4%
65−70
+20.4%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−18.1%
85−90
+18.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
−17.3%
95−100
+17.3%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−22.8%
210−220
+22.8%
Hitman 3 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
−21.4%
170−180
+21.4%
Metro Exodus 100−110
−21.5%
130−140
+21.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
−20.3%
95−100
+20.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
−15%
130−140
+15%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
−19.7%
140−150
+19.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−15.9%
80−85
+15.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
−18.2%
65−70
+18.2%
Battlefield 5 100−110
−15.4%
120−130
+15.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
−23.1%
80−85
+23.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−20.4%
65−70
+20.4%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−18.1%
85−90
+18.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
−17.3%
95−100
+17.3%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−22.8%
210−220
+22.8%
Hitman 3 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
−21.4%
170−180
+21.4%
Metro Exodus 100−110
−21.5%
130−140
+21.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
−20.3%
95−100
+20.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
−15%
130−140
+15%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
−19.7%
140−150
+19.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
−15.9%
80−85
+15.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
−18.2%
65−70
+18.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
−23.1%
80−85
+23.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
−20.4%
65−70
+20.4%
Far Cry 5 70−75
−18.1%
85−90
+18.1%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
−22.8%
210−220
+22.8%
Hitman 3 65−70
−19.4%
80−85
+19.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
−21.4%
170−180
+21.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
−15%
130−140
+15%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
−17.2%
75−80
+17.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
−19.7%
140−150
+19.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
−20.3%
95−100
+20.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
−23%
75−80
+23%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−22.4%
60−65
+22.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−17.6%
40−45
+17.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
−17.6%
40−45
+17.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−21.6%
45−50
+21.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−21.6%
45−50
+21.6%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
−19.6%
220−230
+19.6%
Hitman 3 40−45
−12.5%
45−50
+12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
−17.6%
80−85
+17.6%
Metro Exodus 60−65
−23%
75−80
+23%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
−21.6%
90−95
+21.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−16.3%
50−55
+16.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
−18.3%
200−210
+18.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
−20.4%
65−70
+20.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Hitman 3 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
−20.3%
190−200
+20.3%
Metro Exodus 35−40
−15.4%
45−50
+15.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
−19%
50−55
+19%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−14.3%
24−27
+14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
−13.6%
50−55
+13.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−19%
50−55
+19%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−20%
18−20
+20%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 19% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 23% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.02 39.43
Recency 14 August 2017 21 March 2023
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 115 Watt

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile has a 23.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 82.6% lower power consumption.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 56 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 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.

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 RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile

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.


3.5 89 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 18 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation 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.