Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs Pro Vega II
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega II with Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega II outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by a whopping 351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 102 | 489 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 28 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.88 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.89 | 41.40 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | Vega |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 4096 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1574 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1720 MHz | 2100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 440.3 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 14.09 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 256 | no data |
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).
| Interface | Apple MPX | no data |
| Width | Quad-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 806 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 825.3 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
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 | 100−110
+335%
| 23
−335%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+341%
| 17
−341%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+344%
| 9
−344%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 21.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 29.32 | no data |
| 4K | 54.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2
+0%
|
2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Pro Vega II and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega II is 335% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega II is 341% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega II is 344% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.56 | 9.00 |
| Recency | 3 June 2019 | 7 January 2020 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 475 Watt | 15 Watt |
Pro Vega II has a 350.7% higher aggregate performance score.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 3066.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega II is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega II is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
