AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a decisive result. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II scores 99,048, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562. That is a 44.5% advantage for the Pro Vega II, a margin that separates these two cards into completely different performance tiers. The Pro Vega II's score also lands close to its own average benchmark score of 109,617, suggesting strong consistency in compute workloads. The Instinct MI25, by contrast, posts a result that matches its average benchmark score of 68,562 exactly, as it has only this single test recorded in the database.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Pro Vega II sits in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the Instinct MI25 sits in the 90th percentile. That four-point percentile gap understates the raw performance difference, but it does show both cards are well above the median. The Pro Vega II's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 with an average score of 110,725 (the Pro Vega II trails by 1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X at 107,342 (the Pro Vega II leads by 2.1%), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo at 106,750 (the Pro Vega II leads by 2.7%). The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, with an average score of 113,944, sits 3.8% ahead of the Pro Vega II. For the Instinct MI25, the nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809 (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870 (1.9% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (2% ahead). The Instinct MI25 is essentially at parity with these cards, whereas the Pro Vega II is in a much faster league.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro Vega II wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, and it wins decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it outperforms the Instinct MI25 by 44.5%. This makes the Pro Vega II the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, which is common in rendering, scientific simulation, and data processing tasks. The Pro Vega II also has additional recorded benchmark results in Geekbench Metal (130,183) and Geekbench Vulkan (99,621), giving it a broader software compatibility profile. The Instinct MI25 has no Metal or Vulkan benchmark scores recorded, which means the database shows no evidence of its performance in those APIs.

For the Instinct MI25, the wins are more contextual. It is not ahead in any direct benchmark, but its nearest rival cluster shows that it competes effectively with cards like the Intel Arc A770 and NVIDIA CMP 90HX. In a workload where the Pro Vega II is not available or not compatible, the Instinct MI25 is still competitive with its immediate peers. The data also indicates that the Instinct MI25 is a dual-slot card with no display outputs, which makes it a dedicated compute accelerator. The Pro Vega II, on the other hand, has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt), so it can serve as both a compute device and a display driver. For a workstation that needs to drive monitors and run compute tasks simultaneously, the Pro Vega II's feature set is more practical.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's graphics architecture, and the manufacturing process difference is stark. The Pro Vega II uses the Vega 20 chip built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Instinct MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Pro Vega II belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation with GCN 5.1 architecture, while the Instinct MI25 belongs to the Radeon Instinct (MIx) generation with GCN 5.0 architecture. This process shrink explains much of the performance gap: the Pro Vega II packs 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.0 million per mm². The Instinct MI25 has 12,500 million transistors spread across a much larger 495 mm² die, giving it a density of just 25.3 million per mm². The newer process node allows the Pro Vega II to run at higher clocks while consuming more power, but the efficiency gain is evident in the density figures.

Clock speeds also favor the Pro Vega II. Its base clock is 1,574 MHz and its boost clock is 1,720 MHz, compared to 1,400 MHz base and 1,500 MHz boost on the Instinct MI25. Memory configurations are dramatically different as well. The Pro Vega II has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 825.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Instinct MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 436.2 GB/s. That is roughly half the memory capacity and roughly half the bandwidth. The memory clock difference is notable too: the Pro Vega II runs its memory at 806 MHz (1,612 Mbps effective), while the Instinct MI25 runs at 852 MHz (1,704 Mbps effective). Despite the higher memory clock on the Instinct MI25, the wider bus on the Pro Vega II results in far greater total bandwidth.

Compute resources are identical in terms of shading units and texture units: both cards have 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The Pro Vega II's higher clocks push its pixel rate to 110.1 GPixel/s and texture rate to 440.3 GTexel/s, versus 96.00 GPixel/s and 384.0 GTexel/s for the Instinct MI25. Floating-point performance follows the same pattern: the Pro Vega II delivers 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 28.18 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the Instinct MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The Pro Vega II is ahead in every compute metric, but the margin is smaller in raw shader throughput than in memory bandwidth, which suggests the memory subsystem is a major differentiator.

Power and physical design also differ substantially. The Pro Vega II has a TDP of 475 W and requires a suggested 850 W power supply, while the Instinct MI25 has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested 700 W power supply. The Pro Vega II is a quad-slot card with an Apple MPX bus interface, while the Instinct MI25 is a dual-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and 2x 8-pin power connectors. The Instinct MI25 has recorded dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The Pro Vega II has no recorded dimensions in the database. The bus interface difference is particularly important: the Apple MPX connector is proprietary to Apple's Mac Pro ecosystem, which means the Pro Vega II is not a drop-in card for standard PC motherboards. The Instinct MI25, with its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, is far more versatile in terms of system compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II scores 99,048 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 44.5% higher than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25's score of 68,562.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. However, the Pro Vega II has recorded benchmark scores in Metal and Vulkan, while the Instinct MI25 only has an OpenCL score in the database.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Pro Vega II has 32 GB of HBM2 memory, while the Instinct MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2. The Pro Vega II also has a 4096-bit memory bus and 825.3 GB/s bandwidth, versus a 2048-bit bus and 436.2 GB/s for the Instinct MI25.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Pro Vega II was released on 2019-06-02 with a launch MSRP of 2,199 USD, while the Instinct MI25 was released on 2017-06-26 and had no launch MSRP recorded.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The Pro Vega II has a transistor density of 40.0 million per mm², using 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die. The Instinct MI25 has 25.3 million per mm², using 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die.

Q: Can the Instinct MI25 drive displays?

A: No. The Instinct MI25 has no display outputs. The Pro Vega II has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 7 nm for the Pro Vega II versus 14 nm for the Instinct MI25. The foundry is TSMC for the Pro Vega II versus GlobalFoundries for the Instinct MI25. Transistor count is 13,230 million versus 12,500 million. Die size is 331 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density is 40.0 million per mm² versus 25.3 million per mm². Base clock is 1,574 MHz versus 1,400 MHz. Boost clock is 1,720 MHz versus 1,500 MHz. Memory clock is 806 MHz (1,612 Mbps effective) versus 852 MHz (1,704 Mbps effective). Memory size is 32 GB versus 16 GB. Memory bus width is 4096 bit versus 2048 bit. Memory bandwidth is 825.3 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s. Pixel rate is 110.1 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 440.3 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 14.09 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 28.18 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS. TDP is 475 W versus 300 W. Slot width is quad-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are not recorded for the Pro Vega II, while the Instinct MI25 uses 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 850 W versus 700 W. Bus interface is Apple MPX versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt versus no outputs. Release date is 2019-06-02 versus 2017-06-26. The Pro Vega II has a launch MSRP of 2,199 USD, while the Instinct MI25 has none recorded. Architecture is GCN 5.1 versus GCN 5.0. Generation is Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) versus Radeon Instinct (MIx). The chip is Vega 20 versus Vega 10. The Instinct MI25 has a recorded predecessor (FirePro Data Center), while the Pro Vega II has none. Neither card has a recorded successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II is the faster card by a wide margin, leading the Instinct MI25 by 44.5% in the only shared benchmark. It also offers double the memory capacity, more than double the memory bandwidth, higher clock speeds, and better pixel and texture rates. Its 94th percentile ranking versus the Instinct MI25's 90th percentile reinforces this conclusion. For anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy workloads, the Pro Vega II is the stronger option on every measurable axis.

However, the choice is not purely about performance. The Pro Vega II uses an Apple MPX bus interface, which restricts it to Apple Mac Pro systems. The Instinct MI25 uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, making it compatible with a much wider range of systems. The Instinct MI25 also consumes less power (300 W TDP versus 475 W) and requires a smaller power supply (700 W versus 850 W). Its dual-slot design is more manageable than the Pro Vega II's quad-slot footprint. For a system that cannot accommodate Apple MPX or that has power constraints, the Instinct MI25 remains a viable compute accelerator, especially given its close competition with cards like the Intel Arc A770 and NVIDIA Quadro P6000.

The verdict depends on the use case. If the target system is a Mac Pro and maximum compute performance is the goal, the Pro Vega II is the obvious pick. It is faster, has more memory, and includes display outputs. If the target system is a standard PC with PCIe, or if power and physical space are limited, the Instinct MI25 is the practical choice, even though it trails in raw performance. The database does not record any benchmark where the Instinct MI25 beats the Pro Vega II, so the performance decision is one-sided. The compatibility decision, however, goes the other way.