AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon Vega 8 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two AMD parts cleanly by workload and platform. The Radeon Pro 450 wins all three recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with its largest margin in Vulkan (29.3% ahead) and its smallest in OpenCL (2% ahead). Its average benchmark score of 10804 places it at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 8 sits at 9221 average and the 45th percentile. If raw GPU compute is the priority, the Pro 450 is the stronger chip in every measured test. The Vega 8, however, is an integrated processor with a 25 W TDP, no separate memory, and a system-dependent memory bandwidth. It wins on efficiency per watt mathematically, since its TDP is 10 W lower, but it loses on absolute performance in all three workloads. The practical verdict: choose the Pro 450 for dedicated graphics work in a portable Mac system, and choose Vega 8 only when the platform demands an IGP with shared system memory and lower power draw.

The Pro 450 is end-of-life, released in late 2016, and the Vega 8 is also end-of-life, released in early 2018. Neither is a current-generation part. The Pro 450 targets mobile Mac workstations with an MXM module form factor, while Vega 8 is an IGP baked into a Raven Ridge APU. For someone building or upgrading a laptop with an MXM slot, the Pro 450 is the only one of the two that fits. For someone building a small-form-factor or budget desktop around a Raven Ridge processor, the Vega 8 is the only one of the two that exists as an integrated solution. The benchmark data does not support picking Vega 8 over the Pro 450 on performance grounds alone; it supports picking Vega 8 only when the IGP form factor and lower TDP are non-negotiable.

Architecture Differences

The Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 at a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The Vega 8 uses the Raven chip built on GCN 5.0, also at 14 nm from GlobalFoundries. The transistor counts differ substantially: the Pro 450 packs 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a density of 24.4M transistors per mm². The Vega 8 packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, but its density is slightly lower at 23.5M per mm². The Vega 8's larger die includes CPU cores, since it is an APU, which explains the higher transistor count despite the lower density.

Shader and texture hardware favor the Pro 450 in raw counts. The Pro 450 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Vega 8 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Clock behavior differs too: the Vega 8 has a recorded base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the Pro 450 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. The Pro 450's memory runs at 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective, while the Vega 8 uses system-shared memory with no fixed speed.

The FP32 and FP16 compute ratios also differ. The Pro 450 delivers 1,024.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 1,024.0 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The Vega 8 delivers 1,126.4 GFLOPS FP32 and 2.253 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. So the Vega 8 actually has a higher FP32 peak and a much higher FP16 peak, despite having fewer shaders. The Pro 450 counters with higher pixel rate (12.80 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s) but lower texture rate (32.00 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s). The Vega 8's texture rate advantage comes from its higher boost clock.

API support is nearly identical, with both supporting Vulkan 1.3 and OpenGL 4.6. The DirectX version differs: the Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The Vega 8's predecessor is listed as GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor as Vega II IGP; the Pro 450 has no predecessor or successor listed. Both are end-of-life parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the Pro 450. In Geekbench Metal, the Pro 450 scores 12893 against the Vega 8's 10706, a 20.4% delta. This is the second-largest margin of the three tests and reflects the Pro 450's dedicated GDDR5 memory and higher ROP count. Metal is Apple's API, and the Pro 450 is designed for Mac systems, so this result aligns with its intended use case. In Geekbench OpenCL, the gap narrows to just 2%, with the Pro 450 scoring 9002 and the Vega 8 scoring 8822. OpenCL is the closest contest of the three, and the Vega 8's higher FP32 peak (1,126.4 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS) likely keeps it within striking distance despite its shared memory and lower shader count. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro 450 wins by the largest margin, 29.3%, scoring 10518 against the Vega 8's 8134. Vulkan workloads often stress memory bandwidth and raw throughput, where the Pro 450's 81.28 GB/s dedicated bandwidth and 128-bit bus give it a decisive edge over the Vega 8's system-dependent memory.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this ordering. The Pro 450 averages 10804 across all recorded tests, while the Vega 8 averages 9221. That is a 17.2% gap in average score, though the exact percentage is not in the database; the individual deltas are 20.4%, 2%, and 29.3%. The Pro 450's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 at 0.4% higher average, the GeForce MX350 at 0.7% higher, the GTX 560 Ti at 1.1% lower, and the RX 6600S at 1.7% lower. The Vega 8's nearest rivals cluster within 0.9% of its average: the Radeon 890M at 0.1% higher, the GTX 960 at 0.6% higher, the GTX 465 at 0.8% higher, and the GTX 850M at 0.9% higher. The Pro 450's rival cluster is tighter and slightly above its average, while the Vega 8's cluster is slightly below its average, meaning the Vega 8 sits marginally above four comparable GPUs. The percentile ranks reflect this: 49th for the Pro 450 versus 45th for the Vega 8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is faster, scoring 12893 versus the Vega 8's 10706, a 20.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Vega 8 beat the Pro 450 in any benchmark?

A: No. The database records three head-to-head tests, Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, and the Pro 450 wins all three. The narrowest margin is 2% in OpenCL.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Pro 450 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The Vega 8 has a higher FP32 peak at 1,126.4 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS for the Pro 450, despite having fewer shading units (512 versus 640). The Pro 450 still wins the recorded compute benchmarks.

Q: What are the TDPs of the two GPUs?

A: The Pro 450 is rated at 35 W and uses an MXM Module slot. The Vega 8 is rated at 25 W and is an IGP with no power connectors.

Q: How do their DirectX versions differ?

A: The Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro 450 wins in every recorded benchmark category: Metal by 20.4%, OpenCL by 2%, and Vulkan by 29.3%. It also has a higher average benchmark score (10804 versus 9221) and a higher percentile rank (49th versus 45th). Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth and 128-bit bus makes it the clear choice for workloads that depend on memory throughput, such as Vulkan compute or Metal-accelerated rendering. Its 16 ROPs double the Vega 8's 8 ROPs, which helps pixel fill rate (12.80 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s). The Pro 450 is also the only one of the two that supports a discrete MXM module form factor, making it the right pick for laptops with an MXM slot that need a dedicated GPU.

The Vega 8 wins on power efficiency and integration. Its 25 W TDP is 10 W lower than the Pro 450's 35 W. It is an IGP with no power connectors, no separate memory, and a motherboard-dependent display output. Its texture rate is higher (35.20 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s), and its FP32 and FP16 peaks are higher (1,126.4 GFLOPS and 2.253 TFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS and 1,024.0 GFLOPS). In OpenCL, the Vega 8 comes within 2% of the Pro 450, so for compute workloads that scale with shader throughput rather than memory bandwidth, the Vega 8 is nearly competitive. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is also a step above the Pro 450's 12_0.

For a practical build decision: if the system has an MXM slot and needs a discrete GPU with dedicated memory, the Pro 450 is the stronger part in all measured tests. If the system is an APU-based desktop or laptop where the GPU must share system memory and the TDP budget is tight, the Vega 8 is the appropriate choice, and its OpenCL performance is close enough to the Pro 450 that the difference may not matter for general-purpose compute. For Vulkan-heavy workloads, the Pro 450 is decisively better, with a 29.3% lead. For Metal-heavy workloads, the Pro 450 is also clearly ahead at 20.4%. The Vega 8's only recorded wins are in raw compute peaks and texture rate, not in any actual benchmark test.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware field. The Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, while the Vega 8 uses the Raven chip with GCN 5.0. The Pro 450 has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die with 24.4M transistors per mm²; the Vega 8 has 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die with 23.5M per mm². The Pro 450's memory clock is 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective, while the Vega 8's memory clock is listed as system shared. Memory capacity is 2 GB GDDR5 for the Pro 450 versus system shared for the Vega 8; bus width is 128 bit versus system shared; bandwidth is 81.28 GB/s versus system dependent.

Shader counts differ: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the Pro 450; 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the Vega 8. Pixel rate is 12.80 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 32.00 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,024.0 GFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS. FP16 is 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) for the Pro 450 versus 2.253 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Vega 8. TDP is 35 W versus 25 W. Slot width is MXM Module versus IGP. Power connectors are not listed for the Pro 450, while the Vega 8 has none. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the Pro 450 versus IGP for the Vega 8. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the Pro 450 versus motherboard dependent for the Vega 8. DirectX support is 12 (12_0) versus 12 (12_1). The Vega 8 has a predecessor (GCN 3.0 IGP) and successor (Vega II IGP); the Pro 450 has neither listed. The release dates differ by over a year: the Pro 450 launched in late 2016, the Vega 8 in early 2018. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.