Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs R7 M445
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M445 with Radeon Pro Vega 64X, including specs and performance data.
Pro 64X outperforms R7 M445 by a whopping 1308% 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 | 906 | 192 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.99 | 9.85 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Meso | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 May 2016 (9 years ago) | 19 March 2019 (7 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 | 320 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 920 MHz | 1468 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15-25 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.40 | 375.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5888 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 512.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.125 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 14
−1257%
| 190−200
+1257%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1257%
|
95−100
+1257%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−1264%
|
150−160
+1264%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1233%
|
160−170
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1233%
|
160−170
+1233%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1241%
|
550−600
+1241%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1257%
|
95−100
+1257%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−1233%
|
600−650
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1150%
|
300−310
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
−1264%
|
150−160
+1264%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1233%
|
160−170
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1233%
|
160−170
+1233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−1300%
|
140−150
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1241%
|
550−600
+1241%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1257%
|
95−100
+1257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1150%
|
300−310
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1233%
|
160−170
+1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1233%
|
160−170
+1233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1241%
|
550−600
+1241%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−1264%
|
150−160
+1264%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1253%
|
230−240
+1253%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−1264%
|
300−310
+1264%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−1289%
|
250−260
+1289%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1300%
|
210−220
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−1264%
|
150−160
+1264%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−1233%
|
80−85
+1233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
This is how R7 M445 and Pro Vega 64X compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 64X is 1257% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.27 | 31.97 |
| Recency | 15 May 2016 | 19 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 250 Watt |
R7 M445 has 1567% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega 64X, on the other hand, has a 1308% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega 64X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M445 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 M445 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 64X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
