Radeon Graphics 384SP vs RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking770not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.89no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeCezanne
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2018 (6 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 cores384384
Core clock speed300 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz1700 MHz
Number of transistors9,800 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate40.8040.80
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPS1.306 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2424

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).

InterfaceIGPIGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.12.1
Vulkan1.21.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2018 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 45 Watt

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has 200% lower power consumption.

Graphics 384SP, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Radeon Graphics 384SP. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics 384SP is a desktop one.


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 RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP
Radeon Graphics 384SP

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.


3.5 70 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 21 vote

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP 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.