Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) vs Pro Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
27.94
+1064%

Pro 56 outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 1064% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking217858
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.56no data
Power efficiency10.72no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)GCN (2012−2015)
GPU code nameVega 10Kaveri Spectre
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (8 years ago)14 January 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores3584384
Core clock speed1138 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Wattno data
Texture fill rate280.0no data
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs224no data
L1 Cache896 KBno data
L2 Cache4 MBno 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).

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 typeHBM2no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GBno data
Memory bus width2048 Bitno data
Memory clock speed786 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.1.125-

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Pro Vega 56 27.94
+1064%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.40

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
+1187%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1988

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
+1166%
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1406

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 HD96
+586%
14
−586%
4K57
+1325%
4−5
−1325%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16no data
4K7.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+2314%
7−8
−2314%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+1300%
8−9
−1300%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+2314%
7−8
−2314%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+1286%
7−8
−1286%
Fortnite 130−140
+962%
12−14
−962%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+800%
12−14
−800%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+1483%
6−7
−1483%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+823%
12−14
−823%
Valorant 190−200
+334%
40−45
−334%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+1300%
8−9
−1300%
Counter-Strike 2 160−170
+2314%
7−8
−2314%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+448%
50−55
−448%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Dota 2 107
+312%
24−27
−312%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+1286%
7−8
−1286%
Fortnite 130−140
+962%
12−14
−962%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+800%
12−14
−800%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+1483%
6−7
−1483%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−110
+1067%
9
−1067%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+1600%
4−5
−1600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+823%
12−14
−823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 116
+1189%
9−10
−1189%
Valorant 190−200
+334%
40−45
−334%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+1300%
8−9
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Dota 2 102
+292%
24−27
−292%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+1286%
7−8
−1286%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+800%
12−14
−800%
Hogwarts Legacy 65−70
+713%
8−9
−713%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+823%
12−14
−823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+611%
9−10
−611%
Valorant 190−200
+334%
40−45
−334%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+962%
12−14
−962%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+1050%
6−7
−1050%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220
+1005%
18−20
−1005%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+661%
21−24
−661%
Valorant 220−230
+887%
21−24
−887%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+1250%
6−7
−1250%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1650%
4−5
−1650%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+1233%
6−7
−1233%
Hogwarts Legacy 30−35
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+1633%
3−4
−1633%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+1400%
5−6
−1400%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+269%
16−18
−269%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Valorant 180−190
+1285%
12−14
−1285%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Dota 2 96
+1271%
7−8
−1271%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+2600%
2−3
−2600%
Hogwarts Legacy 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is 586% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 1325% faster in 4K

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 5700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro Vega 56 surpassed R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in all 56 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 27.94 2.40
Recency 14 August 2017 14 January 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm

Pro Vega 56 has a 1064.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

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 93 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 21 votes

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 56 or Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.