Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with Radeon Pro Vega 56, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 56 outperforms Pro Vega 56 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 159 | 181 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 20.59 | 45.13 |
| Power efficiency | 11.15 | 10.48 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro Vega 56 has 119% better value for money than RX Vega 56.
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 | 3584 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 1138 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 210 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 280.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 8.96 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 224 | 224 |
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 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-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 | HBM2 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 786 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.1.125 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 115
+19.8%
| 96
−19.8%
|
| 1440p | 77
+10%
| 70−75
−10%
|
| 4K | 50
−14%
| 57
+14%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47
+19.8%
| 4.16
−19.8%
|
| 1440p | 5.18
+10%
| 5.70
−10%
|
| 4K | 7.98
−14%
| 7.00
+14%
|
- RX Vega 56 has 20% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 has 10% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Pro Vega 56 has 14% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+7%
|
85−90
−7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+5.8%
|
170−180
−5.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+7.5%
|
65−70
−7.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+7%
|
85−90
−7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+34.8%
|
110−120
−34.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+5.8%
|
170−180
−5.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+7.5%
|
65−70
−7.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 150
+8.7%
|
130−140
−8.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+20.5%
|
110−120
−20.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+5.3%
|
95−100
−5.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
+28.6%
|
110−120
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+4.2%
|
190−200
−4.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 90−95
+7%
|
85−90
−7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+25%
|
110−120
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+5.8%
|
170−180
−5.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1.1%
|
270−280
−1.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+7.5%
|
65−70
−7.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+27.1%
|
107
−27.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
−5.4%
|
95−100
+5.4%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+0.7%
|
130−140
−0.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+14.5%
|
110−120
−14.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+5.3%
|
95−100
−5.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
−11.7%
|
100−110
+11.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+2.9%
|
65−70
−2.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
+15.1%
|
110−120
−15.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
+6.9%
|
116
−6.9%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+4.2%
|
190−200
−4.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+17%
|
110−120
−17%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+7.5%
|
65−70
−7.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+33.3%
|
102
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
−10.1%
|
95−100
+10.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
−7.3%
|
110−120
+7.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+0.8%
|
110−120
−0.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+15.6%
|
64
−15.6%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+4.2%
|
190−200
−4.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 108
−27.8%
|
130−140
+27.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+8.5%
|
70−75
−8.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+6.3%
|
200−210
−6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+8.8%
|
55−60
−8.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+2.6%
|
220−230
−2.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 99
+22.2%
|
80−85
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+9.4%
|
30−35
−9.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+8.6%
|
80−85
−8.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+7.5%
|
50−55
−7.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
−1.4%
|
75−80
+1.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+6.1%
|
30−35
−6.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
−20%
|
60−65
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+3.8%
|
24−27
−3.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+4.8%
|
42
−4.8%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+6.7%
|
180−190
−6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+17%
|
45−50
−17%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+6.1%
|
30−35
−6.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+1%
|
96
−1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+9.3%
|
50−55
−9.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+25.7%
|
35−40
−25.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and Pro Vega 56 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 20% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 10% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 56 is 14% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 35% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 28% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is ahead in 53 tests (84%)
- Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 7 tests (11%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.42 | 27.63 |
RX Vega 56 has a 6.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega 56 and Radeon Pro Vega 56.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro Vega 56 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.
