GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega II
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II with GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Pro II outperforms RTX 2080 Super Mobile by a minimal 1% 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 | 138 | 144 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.28 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.03 | 18.87 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (6 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4096 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1574 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 1560 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 440.3 | 299.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.09 TFLOPS | 9.585 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 256 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | Quad-slot | 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 806 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 825.3 GB/s | 448.0 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 130−140
−5.4%
| 137
+5.4%
|
| 1440p | 95−100
+0%
| 95
+0%
|
| 4K | 65−70
+0%
| 65
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.92 | no data |
| 1440p | 23.15 | no data |
| 4K | 33.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Valorant | 205
+0%
|
205
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
This is how Pro Vega II and RTX 2080 Super Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super Mobile is 5% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- A tie in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 37.27 | 36.86 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 2 April 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 150 Watt |
Pro Vega II has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 2080 Super Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 216.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro Vega II and GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
