Radeon RX Vega 64 vs Pro Vega 64

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 with Radeon RX Vega 64, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
33.60

RX Vega 64 outperforms Pro Vega 64 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking160128
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data22.30
Power efficiency9.258.64
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameVega 10Vega 10
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date27 June 2017 (7 years ago)7 August 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$499

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 cores40964096
Core clock speed1250 MHz1247 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1546 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate345.6395.8
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS12.66 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs256256

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 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm279 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-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 typeHBM2HBM2
Maximum RAM amount16 GB8 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz945 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s483.8 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.1.125

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 64 33.60
RX Vega 64 37.04
+10.2%

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 64 12920
RX Vega 64 14241
+10.2%

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 HD100−110
−18%
118
+18%
1440p70−75
−14.3%
80
+14.3%
4K45−50
−15.6%
52
+15.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.23
1440pno data6.24
4Kno data9.60

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Elden Ring 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 82
+0%
82
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 202
+0%
202
+0%
Metro Exodus 105
+0%
105
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 116
+0%
116
+0%
Valorant 182
+0%
182
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 174
+0%
174
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
+0%
27
+0%
Dota 2 50
+0%
50
+0%
Elden Ring 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 123
+0%
123
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 164
+0%
164
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 79
+0%
79
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 92
+0%
92
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Dota 2 138
+0%
138
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 143
+0%
143
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Valorant 140
+0%
140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Elden Ring 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 37
+0%
37
+0%
World of Tanks 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100
+0%
100
+0%
Metro Exodus 79
+0%
79
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 95
+0%
95
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Elden Ring 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 46
+0%
46
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Dota 2 96
+0%
96
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+0%
59
+0%
Valorant 49
+0%
49
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 64 and RX Vega 64 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 64 is 18% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 64 is 14% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 64 is 16% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.60 37.04
Recency 27 June 2017 7 August 2017
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 8 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 295 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 18% lower power consumption.

RX Vega 64, on the other hand, has a 10.2% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 month.

The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Vega 64 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop 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 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
Radeon RX Vega 64

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.


4.3 19 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 723 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 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.