ATI Radeon X850 PRO vs Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with Radeon X850 PRO, including specs and performance data.
Pro 56 outperforms X850 PRO by a whopping 16847% 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 | 222 | 1467 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.58 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | R480 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 December 2004 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Pro Vega 56 and ATI X850 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.
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 cores | 3584 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 507 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 160 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 6.084 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 12 |
| TMUs | 224 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 520 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 33.28 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | N/A |
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.
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 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 57 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16 | no data |
| 4K | 7.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 180−190
+18700%
|
1−2
−18700%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+27300%
|
1−2
−27300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 107 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 180−190
+18700%
|
1−2
−18700%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 102 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 180−190
+18700%
|
1−2
−18700%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+20500%
|
1−2
−20500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+17400%
|
1−2
−17400%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+22400%
|
1−2
−22400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 170−180
+17600%
|
1−2
−17600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 96 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.81 | 0.17 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 1 December 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
Pro Vega 56 has a 16847.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X850 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon X850 PRO 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.
