Radeon RX 480 vs Pro Vega 64
Aggregated performance score
Pro Vega 64 outperforms RX 480 by 50% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 148 | 230 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 2.01 | 11.79 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Polaris (2016−2019) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Polaris 10 Ellesmere |
| GCN generation | no data | 4th Gen |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (6 years ago) | 29 June 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229 |
| Current price | $6074 | $174 (0.8x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 480 has 487% better value for money than Pro Vega 64.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 4096 | 2304 |
| Compute units | no data | 36 |
| Core clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1120 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1266 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 345.6 | 182.3 |
| Floating-point performance | 11,059 gflops | 5,834 gflops |
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).
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | no data | 1 |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1572 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 224 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | no data | 2.0 |
| DisplayPort support | no data | 1.4HDR |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | n/a |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | n/a |
| FRTC | no data | 1 |
| FreeSync | no data | + |
| HD3D | no data | n/a |
| LiquidVR | no data | 1 |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| TressFX | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | n/a |
| ZeroCore | no data | + |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | + |
| Mantle | no data | n/a |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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 64 outperforms RX 480 by 50% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Pro Vega 64 outperforms RX 480 by 50% in Passmark.
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 | 110−120
+41%
| 78
−41%
|
| 1440p | 80−85
+48.1%
| 54
−48.1%
|
| 4K | 50−55
+42.9%
| 35
−42.9%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 33.54 | 22.29 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 29 June 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 150 Watt |
The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 480 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 480 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
