Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs Pro Vega 64X

Place in the ranking	147	489
Place by popularity	not in top-100	28
Power efficiency	9.57	41.35
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code name	Vega 10	Vega
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	19 March 2019 (5 years ago)	7 January 2020 (5 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 cores	4096	512
Core clock speed	1250 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1468 MHz	2100 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	375.8	no data
Floating-point processing power	12.03 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	64	no data
TMUs	256	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	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	HBM2	no data
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	no data
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	512.0 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12_1
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	1.1.125	-

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	85−90 +270%	23 −270%
1440p	65−70 +282%	17 −282%
4K	30−35 +233%	9 −233%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	13 +0%	13 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +0%	19 +0%
Elden Ring	18 +0%	18 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +0%	9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +0%	15 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +0%	32 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +0%	33 +0%
Valorant	44 +0%	44 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9 +0%	9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +0%	11 +0%
Dota 2	29 +0%	29 +0%
Elden Ring	22 +0%	22 +0%
Far Cry 5	30 +0%	30 +0%
Fortnite	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +0%	27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	19 +0%	19 +0%
Metro Exodus	19 +0%	19 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	57 +0%	57 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12 +0%	12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Valorant	14 +0%	14 +0%
World of Tanks	48 +0%	48 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +0%	9 +0%
Dota 2	48 +0%	48 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +0%	23 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	37 +0%	37 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9 +0%	9 +0%
Elden Ring	12 +0%	12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	9 +0%	9 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	22 +0%	22 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	21 +0%	21 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2 +0%	2 +0%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +0%	16 +0%
Metro Exodus	17 +0%	17 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	39 +0%	39 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Dota 2	10 +0%	10 +0%
Elden Ring	6 +0%	6 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 +0%	10 +0%
Metro Exodus	6 +0%	6 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	13 +0%	13 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10 +0%	10 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18 +0%	18 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9 +0%	9 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

This is how Pro Vega 64X and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 64X is 270% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 64X is 282% faster in 1440p
Pro Vega 64X is 233% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	34.77	9.01
Recency	19 March 2019	7 January 2020
Chip lithography	14 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	15 Watt

Pro Vega 64X has a 285.9% higher aggregate performance score.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64X is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 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.