Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q vs Radeon Pro Vega 64X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64X and Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 64X
2019
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
31.90
+64.5%

Pro Vega 64X outperforms RTX 3000 Max-Q by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking186303
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.7224.61
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10TU106
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date19 March 2019 (6 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 years ago)

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 cores40962304
Core clock speed1250 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1468 MHz1215 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate375.8175.0
Floating-point processing power12.03 TFLOPS5.599 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs256144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s448.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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.

Pro Vega 64X 31.90
+64.5%
RTX 3000 Max-Q 19.39

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 64X 13369
+64.5%
RTX 3000 Max-Q 8126

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 HD120−130
+64.4%
73
−64.4%
1440p70−75
+55.6%
45
−55.6%
4K45−50
+55.2%
29
−55.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 87
+0%
87
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 126
+0%
126
+0%
Far Cry 5 79
+0%
79
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85
+0%
85
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 97
+0%
97
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Far Cry 5 75
+0%
75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+0%
52
+0%
Valorant 103
+0%
103
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
God of War 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 65
+0%
65
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 76
+0%
76
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
God of War 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how Pro Vega 64X and RTX 3000 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 64X is 64% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 64X is 56% faster in 1440p
  • Pro Vega 64X is 55% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.90 19.39
Recency 19 March 2019 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 60 Watt

Pro Vega 64X has a 64.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 3000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q in performance tests.

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 64X
Radeon Pro Vega 64X
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q

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.


3.9 36 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 53 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro Vega 64X or Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.