Radeon RX 5700M vs RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Radeon RX 5700M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 5700M outperforms RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) by a substantial 36% 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 | 814 | 731 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.17 | 1.61 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (7 years ago) | 1 March 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 | 384 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1465 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 247.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.306 TFLOPS | 7.926 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
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 | large |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 outputs | 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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
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.
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 | 15
−20%
| 18−21
+20%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12
−25%
|
14−16
+25%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Fortnite | 19
−15.8%
|
21−24
+15.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 32
−116%
|
65−70
+116%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Fortnite | 10
−120%
|
21−24
+120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−38.1%
|
27−30
+38.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−24%
|
30−35
+24%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and RX 5700M compete in popular games:
- RX 5700M is 20% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Sons of the Forest, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 100% faster.
- in Sons of the Forest, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 5700M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
- RX 5700M is ahead in 52 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.72 | 3.70 |
| Recency | 7 January 2018 | 1 March 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 180 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has 1100% lower power consumption.
RX 5700M, on the other hand, has a 36% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5700M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
