Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL vs RX Vega M GL
Aggregated performance score
Pro WX Vega M GL outperforms RX Vega M GL by 28% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 434 | 372 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 2.58 | 2.49 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Vega (2017−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | Vega Kaby Lake-G |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 7 January 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Current price | $1307 | $1359 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX Vega M GL has 4% better value for money than Pro WX Vega M GL.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 931 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1011 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 80.88 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,588 gflops | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega M GL and Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | IGP |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 179.2 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Pro WX Vega M GL outperforms RX Vega M GL by 28% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Pro WX Vega M GL outperforms RX Vega M GL by 28% in Passmark.
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 | 40−45
−30%
| 52
+30%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−28.6%
| 18
+28.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−132%
|
44
+132%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24
+26.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−114%
|
15
+114%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL and Pro WX Vega M GL compete in popular games:
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 30% faster than RX Vega M GL in 1080p
- Pro WX Vega M GL is 28.6% faster than RX Vega M GL in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX Vega M GL is 132% faster than the RX Vega M GL.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro WX Vega M GL surpassed RX Vega M GL in all 3 of our tests.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 9.38 | 11.99 |
The Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
