Radeon Pro 555X vs RX Vega M GL / 870

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 with Radeon Pro 555X, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega M GL / 870
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
13.52
+64.5%

RX Vega M GL / 870 outperforms Pro 555X by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking383511
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency14.617.70
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega Kaby Lake-GPolaris 21
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date7 January 2018 (7 years ago)16 July 2018 (6 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 cores1280768
Core clock speed931 MHz907 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data43.54
Floating-point processing powerno data1.393 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data48

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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1275 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data81.6 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

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 HD43
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
1440p28
+75%
16−18
−75%
4K14
+75%
8−9
−75%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+73.7%
18−20
−73.7%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+73.7%
18−20
−73.7%
Battlefield 5 62
+82.4%
30−35
−82.4%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Far Cry 5 42
+61.5%
24−27
−61.5%
Fortnite 86
+79.2%
45−50
−79.2%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+57.1%
35−40
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+75%
20−22
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+67.9%
27−30
−67.9%
Valorant 110−120
+37%
80−85
−37%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+73.7%
18−20
−73.7%
Battlefield 5 52
+52.9%
30−35
−52.9%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+46%
120−130
−46%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Dota 2 85−90
+41.7%
60−65
−41.7%
Far Cry 5 39
+50%
24−27
−50%
Fortnite 56
+16.7%
45−50
−16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+57.1%
35−40
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+75%
20−22
−75%
Grand Theft Auto V 41
+41.4%
27−30
−41.4%
Metro Exodus 24
+60%
14−16
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+67.9%
27−30
−67.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+95.2%
21−24
−95.2%
Valorant 110−120
+37%
80−85
−37%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 48
+41.2%
30−35
−41.2%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+53.3%
14−16
−53.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Dota 2 85−90
+41.7%
60−65
−41.7%
Far Cry 5 36
+38.5%
24−27
−38.5%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+57.1%
35−40
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+75%
20−22
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+67.9%
27−30
−67.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Valorant 110−120
+37%
80−85
−37%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 38
−26.3%
45−50
+26.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+59%
60−65
−59%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+81.8%
10−12
−81.8%
Metro Exodus 14
+75%
8−9
−75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 62
+51.2%
40−45
−51.2%
Valorant 130−140
+53.9%
85−90
−53.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 34
+100%
16−18
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Far Cry 5 24
+50%
16−18
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+68.4%
18−20
−68.4%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+76.9%
12−14
−76.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24
+50%
16−18
−50%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+52.6%
18−20
−52.6%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+100%
7−8
−100%
Valorant 70−75
+70.7%
40−45
−70.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16
+100%
8−9
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dota 2 45−50
+62.1%
27−30
−62.1%
Far Cry 5 12
+50%
8−9
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+69.2%
12−14
−69.2%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and Pro 555X compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is 79% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is 75% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is 75% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GL / 870 is 200% faster.
  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Pro 555X is 26% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX Vega M GL / 870 is ahead in 66 tests (99%)
  • Pro 555X is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.52 8.22
Recency 7 January 2018 16 July 2018
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 75 Watt

RX Vega M GL / 870 has a 64.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

Pro 555X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months.

The Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 555X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 555X is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
AMD Radeon Pro 555X
Radeon Pro 555X

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1.5 118 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 172 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 555X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 or Radeon Pro 555X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.