Radeon RX 480 vs RX Vega 64

Place in the ranking	131	254
Place by popularity	not in top-100	89
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	21.87	15.65
Power efficiency	8.64	10.26
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Vega 10	Ellesmere
GCN generation	no data	4th Gen
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	7 August 2017 (7 years ago)	29 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	$229

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX Vega 64 has 40% better value for money than RX 480.

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	2304
Compute units	no data	36
Core clock speed	1247 MHz	1120 MHz
Boost clock speed	1546 MHz	1266 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	150 Watt
Texture fill rate	395.8	182.3
Floating-point processing power	12.66 TFLOPS	5.834 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	256	144

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).

Bus support	no data	n/a
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	279 mm	241 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	1x 6-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire	-	+

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	945 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	483.8 GB/s	224 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
HDMI	+	2.0
DisplayPort support	-	1.4HDR

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	-	n/a
CrossFire	-	+
Enduro	-	n/a
FRTC	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
HD3D	-	n/a
LiquidVR	-	+
PowerTune	-	+
TressFX	-	+
TrueAudio	-	n/a
ZeroCore	-	+
UVD	-	+
VCE	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	+
Mantle	-	n/a

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

RX Vega 64 36.55
+65.5%

RX 480 22.08

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.

RX Vega 64 14227
+65.5%

RX 480 8594

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

RX Vega 64 30824
+72%

RX 480 17919

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RX Vega 64 55262
+39.7%

RX 480 39552

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

RX Vega 64 22501
+84.6%

RX 480 12186

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 64 127374
+76.4%

RX 480 72213

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 64 392304
+2.3%

RX 480 383333

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	118 +53.2%	77 −53.2%
1440p	80 +53.8%	52 −53.8%
4K	52 +48.6%	35 −48.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.23 −42.2%	2.97 +42.2%
1440p	6.24 −41.6%	4.40 +41.6%
4K	9.60 −46.7%	6.54 +46.7%

RX 480 has 42% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 480 has 42% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 480 has 47% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +90%	40−45 −90%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +75.6%	45−50 −75.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	82 +17.1%	70−75 −17.1%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +90%	40−45 −90%
Cyberpunk 2077	34 −32.4%	45−50 +32.4%
Forza Horizon 4	202 +110%	95−100 −110%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +61%	55−60 −61%
Metro Exodus	105 +75%	60−65 −75%
Red Dead Redemption 2	116 +132%	50−55 −132%
Valorant	182 +102%	90−95 −102%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	174 +149%	70−75 −149%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +90%	40−45 −90%
Cyberpunk 2077	27 −66.7%	45−50 +66.7%
Dota 2	50 −4%	52 +4%
Far Cry 5	62 +21.6%	51 −21.6%
Fortnite	123 +7%	110−120 −7%
Forza Horizon 4	164 +70.8%	95−100 −70.8%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +61%	55−60 −61%
Grand Theft Auto V	110−120 +50%	78 −50%
Metro Exodus	79 +394%	16 −394%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +151%	78 −151%
Red Dead Redemption 2	57 +67.6%	34 −67.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	130−140 +333%	30 −333%
Valorant	92 +2.2%	90−95 −2.2%
World of Tanks	270−280 −2.2%	285 +2.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +2.9%	70−75 −2.9%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +162%	29 −162%
Cyberpunk 2077	24 −87.5%	45−50 +87.5%
Dota 2	138 +76.9%	75−80 −76.9%
Far Cry 5	95−100 +33.8%	70−75 −33.8%
Forza Horizon 4	143 +49%	95−100 −49%
Forza Horizon 5	95−100 +61%	55−60 −61%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	190−200 +206%	64 −206%
Valorant	140 +55.6%	90−95 −55.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	65−70 +83.8%	37 −83.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +83.8%	37 −83.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0.6%	170−180 −0.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37 +76.2%	21 −76.2%
World of Tanks	230−240 +57.3%	150−160 −57.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +55.6%	45−50 −55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 −20%	18−20 +20%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +88.9%	60−65 −88.9%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +69.5%	55−60 −69.5%
Forza Horizon 5	60−65 +69.4%	35−40 −69.4%
Metro Exodus	79 +58%	50 −58%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +96.9%	30−35 −96.9%
Valorant	95 +61%	55−60 −61%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Dota 2	70−75 +97.2%	36 −97.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	70−75 +97.2%	36 −97.2%
Metro Exodus	46 +207%	15 −207%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +70%	70 −70%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +71.4%	14−16 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +97.2%	36 −97.2%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	47 +104%	21−24 −104%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	96 +9.1%	88 −9.1%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +86.2%	27−30 −86.2%
Fortnite	50 +78.6%	28 −78.6%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +73.5%	30−35 −73.5%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +78.9%	18−20 −78.9%
Valorant	49 +75%	27−30 −75%

This is how RX Vega 64 and RX 480 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is 53% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 64 is 54% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 64 is 49% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 394% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 480 is 88% faster.

All in all, in popular games: