RTX A4500 Embedded vs Radeon RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 with RTX A4500 Embedded, including specs and performance data.
RTX A4500 Embedded outperforms RX Vega 5 by a whopping 513% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 661 | 209 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.15 | 24.32 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Vega | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 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 | 5888 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 510 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1215 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 223.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 14.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 184 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| 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 | 19
−479%
| 110−120
+479%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
−505%
|
260−270
+505%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 11
−491%
|
65−70
+491%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
−486%
|
170−180
+486%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 52
−477%
|
300−310
+477%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−426%
|
300−310
+426%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−511%
|
110−120
+511%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
−500%
|
300−310
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
−490%
|
230−240
+490%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Fortnite | 21
−471%
|
120−130
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−477%
|
75−80
+477%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−426%
|
300−310
+426%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
−495%
|
220−230
+495%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−426%
|
300−310
+426%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12
−483%
|
70−75
+483%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−494%
|
190−200
+494%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−496%
|
280−290
+496%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−463%
|
45−50
+463%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−507%
|
85−90
+507%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and RTX A4500 Embedded compete in popular games:
- RTX A4500 Embedded is 479% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.98 | 24.41 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 30 March 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 433.3% lower power consumption.
RTX A4500 Embedded, on the other hand, has a 513.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The RTX A4500 Embedded is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 5 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook graphics card while RTX A4500 Embedded 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.
