Radeon PRO V710 vs Pro Vega II

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking100not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation16.37no data
Power efficiency5.85no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameVega 20Navi 32
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date3 June 2019 (5 years ago)3 October 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores40963456
Core clock speed1574 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed1720 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors13,230 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)475 Watt158 Watt
Texture fill rate440.3432.0
Floating-point processing power14.09 TFLOPS27.65 TFLOPS
ROPs6496
TMUs256216
Ray Tracing Coresno data54

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).

InterfaceApple MPXPCIe 4.0 x16
WidthQuad-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB28 GB
Memory bus width4096 Bit224 Bit
Memory clock speed806 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth825.3 GB/s504.0 GB/s

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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x ThunderboltNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.12.2
Vulkan1.31.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 June 2019 3 October 2024
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 28 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 475 Watt 158 Watt

Pro Vega II has a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

PRO V710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 200.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Pro Vega II and Radeon PRO V710. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Pro Vega II
Radeon Pro Vega II
AMD Radeon PRO V710
Radeon PRO V710

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.4 81 vote

Rate Radeon Pro Vega II on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon PRO V710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.