Radeon Pro 5600M vs RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 with Radeon Pro 5600M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5600M outperforms RX Vega 5 by a whopping 423% 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 | 713 | 282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.85 | 34.28 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega | Navi 12 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 15 June 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 | 320 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 164.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.274 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 160 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | medium sized |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 770 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 394.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
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
−400%
| 95−100
+400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
−200%
|
120−130
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−444%
|
45−50
+444%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 11
−318%
|
45−50
+318%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−314%
|
90−95
+314%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
−345%
|
120−130
+345%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−444%
|
45−50
+444%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−393%
|
70−75
+393%
|
| Fortnite | 52
−119%
|
110−120
+119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−355%
|
90−95
+355%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
−318%
|
70−75
+318%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8
−475%
|
45−50
+475%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−418%
|
85−90
+418%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−181%
|
160−170
+181%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−406%
|
90−95
+406%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
−1743%
|
120−130
+1743%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
−402%
|
250−260
+402%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−444%
|
45−50
+444%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
−205%
|
110−120
+205%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−517%
|
70−75
+517%
|
| Fortnite | 21
−443%
|
110−120
+443%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−355%
|
90−95
+355%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
−373%
|
70−75
+373%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−538%
|
80−85
+538%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−411%
|
45−50
+411%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−418%
|
85−90
+418%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−371%
|
65−70
+371%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−181%
|
160−170
+181%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−469%
|
90−95
+469%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−444%
|
45−50
+444%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
−222%
|
110−120
+222%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−469%
|
70−75
+469%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−355%
|
90−95
+355%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
−411%
|
45−50
+411%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−418%
|
85−90
+418%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−181%
|
160−170
+181%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12
−850%
|
110−120
+850%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−433%
|
45−50
+433%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−391%
|
160−170
+391%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−427%
|
170−180
+427%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−330%
|
190−200
+330%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3100%
|
60−65
+3100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−550%
|
50−55
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−480%
|
55−60
+480%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−575%
|
50−55
+575%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−163%
|
40−45
+163%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−529%
|
130−140
+529%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−443%
|
75−80
+443%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−700%
|
40−45
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and Pro 5600M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5600M is 400% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5600M is 3400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5600M performs better in 60 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.26 | 22.28 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 15 June 2020 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has 233.3% lower power consumption.
Pro 5600M, on the other hand, has a 423% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 5 months.
The Radeon Pro 5600M 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 Radeon Pro 5600M 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.
