Radeon RX Vega 2 vs Pro Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking169not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation47.09no data
Power efficiency11.19no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameVega 10Vega Raven Ridge
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)7 January 2018 (6 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 cores3584128
Core clock speed1138 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1250 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt15 Watt
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).

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

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_1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
Vulkan1.1.125-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 14 August 2017 7 January 2018
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 15 Watt

RX Vega 2 has an age advantage of 4 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1300% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Pro Vega 56 and Radeon RX Vega 2. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 2 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
AMD Radeon RX Vega 2
Radeon RX Vega 2

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
3.2 207 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 2 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.