AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are both built on the same Vega 10 silicon, yet they target fundamentally different use cases. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, driven by substantial differences in core configuration and clock speeds, despite their shared architectural heritage. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, specifications, and architectural choices that define these two end-of-life AMD accelerators.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparative benchmark available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisively in favor of the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25. In this test, the MI25 scores 68562 points, while the Radeon Pro Vega 48 manages 53757 points. This translates to a 27.5% advantage for the Instinct card, a substantial margin that underscores the significant performance gap between the two. The MI25’s lead is not marginal; it represents a clear tier of performance separation.

Looking at the MI25’s score in the broader context, it sits at the 90th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A770 (68809, -0.4%), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000, -0.6%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69870, -1.9%). These tiny delta percentages show that the MI25 is effectively trading blows with these high-end cards, all within a 2% performance window. It is a high-performance part that is competitive with some of the most powerful accelerators of its generation.

In contrast, the Radeon Pro Vega 48’s OpenCL score of 53757 places it at the 88th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in this test are the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60326, -0.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60347, -0.3%). The fact that the Vega 48’s nearest rival list includes the RTX 4090, with a delta of only -0.3%, confirms the variability of the average benchmark scores, but it also highlights that the Vega 48 is a mid-range performer that is not in the same league as the top-tier cards. The MI25 is a full 27.5% faster than the Vega 48 in OpenCL, a gap that is far larger than any of the differences seen between the two cards and their respective nearest rivals.

The Radeon Pro Vega 48 does have additional benchmark data points that the MI25 lacks, though they are not directly comparable. In the Geekbench Metal test, the Vega 48 scores 69010, and in the Geekbench Vulkan test, it scores 57653. While the Metal score is notably high and even exceeds the MI25’s OpenCL score, it is a different API and cannot be used for a direct comparison. The Vulkan score of 57653 is significantly lower than its own Metal score and is also lower than the MI25’s OpenCL result, further reinforcing the performance hierarchy observed in the shared OpenCL test.

The Verdict

From a pure performance standpoint, the data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is the superior choice. Its 27.5% lead in the shared OpenCL benchmark is definitive. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute performance, the MI25 is unequivocally the stronger option. The MI25’s 90th percentile ranking and its close competition with cards like the Intel Arc A770 and NVIDIA CMP 90HX confirm its high-end status.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, while a competent performer in its own right, is clearly a step down. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 60140, which is significantly lower than the MI25’s average score of 68562. This is despite the Vega 48 having a higher score in the Metal API, which suggests its performance is API-dependent, but in the only common test, it loses decisively. The data suggests that the Vega 48 is positioned for a different, likely more power-constrained or mobile-oriented role, given its IGP slot width and lack of dedicated power connectors.

Therefore, for a user prioritizing raw compute throughput in a standard PCIe slot, the Instinct MI25 is the clear pick. The Radeon Pro Vega 48 would only be the choice in a scenario where its unique form factor is a requirement, as it is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no dedicated power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The benchmark data provides no other reason to prefer the Vega 48, as it is slower in the only head-to-head comparison available. The verdict is simple: the MI25 wins on performance, while the Vega 48’s only advantage lies in its specific physical and power characteristics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is significantly faster, scoring 68562 compared to the Radeon Pro Vega 48’s 53757, a 27.5% advantage.

Q: How does the MI25's performance compare to its closest rivals?

A: Its score of 68562 is effectively on par with the Intel Arc A770 (68809, -0.4%) and NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69000, -0.6%), and just slightly behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69870, -1.9%).

Q: Is the Radeon Pro Vega 48 a high-end competitor based on its benchmark scores?

A: No. Its OpenCL score of 53757 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 in its nearest rivals list, but that is due to a small delta of -0.3%. Its average score of 60140 and 88th percentile ranking show it is a mid-range performer compared to the MI25’s 90th percentile.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Vega 48 have any benchmark wins over the Instinct MI25?

A: No. In the only direct head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the MI25 wins. The Vega 48 does have a higher score in Geekbench Metal (69010), but that test is not available for the MI25 and thus cannot be used for a comparison.

Q: What is the performance gap in percentage terms?

A: The MI25 leads by 27.5% in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has an average score of 68562, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has an average score of 60140.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in their core specifications, which explains the performance gap. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 features 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 ROPs. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is equipped with fewer resources, having 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs, while retaining the same 64 ROPs. This reduction in shader and texture hardware directly impacts the MI25’s superior throughput.

Clock speeds also differ, though the Vega 48 does not have listed base or boost clocks. The MI25 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1500 MHz. The memory clocks also vary, with the MI25 running at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) and the Vega 48 at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). Memory configuration is another major differentiator. The MI25 comes with 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 436.2 GB/s. The Vega 48 has half the memory capacity at 8 GB of HBM2, but uses the same 2048-bit bus, resulting in a lower bandwidth of 402.4 GB/s.

The physical and power characteristics are starkly different. The MI25 has a TDP of 300 W, requires dual-slot cooling, and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors. It also has a suggested PSU rating of 700 W. In contrast, the Vega 48 has no listed TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a single-slot width, and requires no power connectors. The MI25 has no display outputs, while the Vega 48's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." The MI25 has specified dimensions of 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Vega 48 has none.

Architecture Differences

Despite their differences, both GPUs share a common foundation. They are both based on the "Vega 10" chip and use the GCN 5.0 architecture. Both are manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with the same 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, resulting in an identical transistor density of 25.3M per mm². This means the architectural design is the same; the differences are in how the silicon is configured.

The key architectural difference is the active compute resources. The MI25 enables all of the Vega 10 die’s capabilities, with its 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs. The Vega 48 uses a more cut-down configuration, with only 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs active. This is a classic binning strategy, where a lower-performing or power-limited part has some of its compute units disabled. This reduction in active hardware is the primary reason for the Vega 48's lower performance metrics, including its FP32 rate of 7.373 TFLOPS compared to the MI25's 12.29 TFLOPS. The FP16 rates follow the same 2:1 pattern, with the MI25 at 24.58 TFLOPS and the Vega 48 at 14.75 TFLOPS.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. They also both use the PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The release dates differ, with the MI25 released on June 26, 2017, and the Vega 48 on March 18, 2019. The architectural foundation is identical, but the MI25 is the fully-enabled, high-power variant, while the Vega 48 is a more restricted, power-efficient implementation of the same design. The MI25 belongs to the "Radeon Instinct (MIx)" generation, while the Vega 48 is from the "Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series)" generation, reflecting their distinct target markets.