Radeon Pro 5700 XT vs RX Vega 3
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 3 with Radeon Pro 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5700 XT outperforms RX Vega 3 by a whopping 983% 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 | 850 | 214 |
| Place by popularity | 94 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.12 | 17.65 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Picasso | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 January 2019 (7 years ago) | 4 August 2020 (5 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 | 192 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1001 MHz | 1499 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.01 | 239.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3844 TFLOPS | 7.675 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 12 | 160 |
| 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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 12
−900%
| 120−130
+900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 22
−945%
|
230−240
+945%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 14
−971%
|
150−160
+971%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−971%
|
150−160
+971%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−900%
|
450−500
+900%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 23
−943%
|
240−250
+943%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
−948%
|
220−230
+948%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−963%
|
85−90
+963%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−971%
|
150−160
+971%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−971%
|
150−160
+971%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−900%
|
450−500
+900%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−956%
|
95−100
+956%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−953%
|
200−210
+953%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−963%
|
85−90
+963%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−971%
|
150−160
+971%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−900%
|
450−500
+900%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−971%
|
150−160
+971%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−948%
|
220−230
+948%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−980%
|
270−280
+980%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−980%
|
270−280
+980%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−971%
|
75−80
+971%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−900%
|
50−55
+900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−967%
|
160−170
+967%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−963%
|
85−90
+963%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
This is how RX Vega 3 and Pro 5700 XT compete in popular games:
- Pro 5700 XT is 900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.75 | 29.79 |
| Recency | 6 January 2019 | 4 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 130 Watt |
RX Vega 3 has 767% lower power consumption.
Pro 5700 XT, on the other hand, has a 983% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 3 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 3 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5700 XT 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.
