Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs R7 370

Place in the ranking	413	196
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.67	no data
Power efficiency	7.34	no data
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code name	Trinidad	Vega 10
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	19 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

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 cores	1024	3072
Core clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Boost clock speed	975 MHz	1300 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	62.40	249.6
Floating-point processing power	1.997 TFLOPS	7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	64	192

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	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	152 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	None

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	GDDR5	HBM2
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	2048 Bit
Memory clock speed	975 MHz	786 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	402.4 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	+	1.1.125
Mantle	+	-

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.

R7 370 11.71

Pro Vega 48 29.40
+151%

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.

R7 370 4499

Pro Vega 48 11299
+151%

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	47 −134%	110−120 +134%
1440p	57 −146%	140−150 +146%
4K	20 −150%	50−55 +150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.17	no data
1440p	2.61	no data
4K	7.45	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −134%	110−120 +134%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
Valorant	35 −143%	85−90 +143%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Dota 2	29 −141%	70−75 +141%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −139%	110−120 +139%
Fortnite	65−70 −139%	160−170 +139%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −134%	110−120 +134%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	44 −150%	110−120 +150%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55 −136%	130−140 +136%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	37 −143%	90−95 +143%
Valorant	45−50 −139%	110−120 +139%
World of Tanks	160−170 −147%	400−450 +147%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Dota 2	40−45 −138%	100−105 +138%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −139%	110−120 +139%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −134%	110−120 +134%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27 −141%	65−70 +141%
Valorant	20 −150%	50−55 +150%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −150%	160−170 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
World of Tanks	81 −147%	200−210 +147%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −142%	75−80 +142%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Far Cry 5	24−27 −150%	65−70 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −141%	65−70 +141%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −150%	60−65 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Valorant	17 −135%	40−45 +135%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Dota 2	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	37 −143%	90−95 +143%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
World of Tanks	45 −144%	110−120 +144%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Dota 2	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Fortnite	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −150%	40−45 +150%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Valorant	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%

This is how R7 370 and Pro Vega 48 compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 48 is 134% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 48 is 146% faster in 1440p
Pro Vega 48 is 150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.71	29.40
Recency	18 June 2015	19 March 2019
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm

Pro Vega 48 has a 151.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro Vega 48 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 370 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega 48 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.