Radeon Pro V340 vs RX Vega M GL / 870
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 with Radeon Pro V340, including specs and performance data.
M GL / 870 outperforms Pro V340 by an impressive 86% 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 | 434 | 599 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 15.01 | 2.28 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega Kaby Lake-G | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2018 (8 years ago) | 26 August 2018 (7 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 | 1280 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 852 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 336.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 10.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 224 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 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 | HBM2 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 945 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 483.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.125 |
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 | 43
+105%
| 21−24
−105%
|
| 1440p | 28
+100%
| 14−16
−100%
|
| 4K | 14
+100%
| 7−8
−100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 86
+91.1%
|
45−50
−91.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+86.7%
|
60−65
−86.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+89.5%
|
95−100
−89.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Fortnite | 56
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+95.2%
|
21−24
−95.2%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+86.7%
|
60−65
−86.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 48
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+88.9%
|
45−50
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+86.7%
|
60−65
−86.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 62
+107%
|
30−33
−107%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+94.3%
|
70−75
−94.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 34
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+100%
|
35−40
−100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and Pro V340 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 105% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 100% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GL / 870 is 100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.67 | 6.82 |
| Recency | 7 January 2018 | 26 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 230 Watt |
RX Vega M GL / 870 has a 86% higher aggregate performance score, and 254% lower power consumption.
Pro V340, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro V340 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro V340 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
