AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs AMD Radeon Pro 5700: a comparison that pits a compact integrated-class part against a full-size professional mobile GPU. The benchmark data shows a clear hierarchy, with the Radeon Pro 5700 dominating in every recorded test, but the details of where and why reveal distinct design philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the Radeon Pro 5700 wins both by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon Pro 5700 scores 52787 against the RX Vega M GL's 19549, a delta of -63% for the Vega M part. This is not a close contest; the Pro 5700 delivers more than 2.5 times the raw compute performance in this API. The gap narrows slightly in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Pro 5700 scores 51289 versus 22757, a delta of -55.6%. Even so, the Pro 5700 remains decisively ahead, indicating that the architectural advantages of the newer RDNA 1.0 design translate consistently across different graphics APIs.

Looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the Radeon Pro 5700 averages 18189 across all its recorded tests, while the RX Vega M GL averages 21153. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the two GPUs have different benchmark suites recorded in the database. The Pro 5700 has a much wider set of tests, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute workloads, which pull its average down, whereas the Vega M GL only has two Geekbench entries. The head-to-head data, which uses identical tests, is the more reliable measure of direct performance. In those two shared workloads, the Pro 5700 is ahead by roughly 63% and 55.6% respectively, making it the clear winner in this pairing.

The percentile rankings further contextualize the results. The RX Vega M GL sits at the 66th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 5700 sits at the 62nd percentile. This might suggest the Vega M GL is the better overall performer, but the percentile is based on each card's full benchmark set, which includes different workloads. The head-to-head tests are the authoritative comparison for this specific matchup, and they show the Pro 5700 with a dominant 2-0 win record.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies within AMD's lineup. The RX Vega M GL is built on the Polaris 22 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 208 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.0M per mm². The Radeon Pro 5700, by contrast, uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This newer node allows 10,300 million transistors in a 251 mm² die, achieving a density of 41.0M per mm². The Pro 5700 has more than twice the transistor count and nearly double the density, a direct reflection of the generational leap in process technology.

The core configurations differ accordingly. The RX Vega M GL has 1280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Radeon Pro 5700 nearly doubles these figures with 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate climbs from 32.35 GPixel/s to 86.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate jumps from 80.88 GTexel/s to 194.4 GTexel/s. Floating point performance tells a similar story: the Vega M GL delivers 2.588 TFLOPS in FP32, while the Pro 5700 delivers 6.221 TFLOPS, a 2.4x advantage. In FP16, the gap widens further due to a fundamental difference in throughput. The Vega M GL offers 2.588 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while the Pro 5700 offers 12.44 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the RDNA card can process half-precision math at four times the rate of the GCN card.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RX Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, providing 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 5700 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 384.0 GB/s. The Pro 5700 has double the capacity and more than double the bandwidth, despite a narrower bus, thanks to higher memory clocks (1500 MHz versus 700 MHz for the Vega M GL). The Vega M GL's memory runs at 1400 Mbps effective, while the Pro 5700 runs at 12 Gbps effective, a substantial speed advantage.

Clock speeds also favor the Pro 5700. Its base clock is 1243 MHz and boost clock is 1350 MHz, compared to 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost on the Vega M GL. The Pro 5700 runs faster while having many more cores, which compounds its performance lead. API support differs slightly: the Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Pro 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both offer OpenGL 4.6. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those are not part of their respective architectures.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 5700 wins everywhere the two are directly compared. In OpenCL, it leads by 63%, which covers general-purpose compute workloads such as rendering, physics simulation, and data processing. In Vulkan, it leads by 55.6%, which applies to modern games and compute-heavy graphics tasks that leverage this low-overhead API. For any workload that can use either API, the Pro 5700 is the superior choice by a wide margin.

The RX Vega M GL has no recorded wins in this matchup, but it does have contextual strengths. Its 65 W TDP is less than half of the Pro 5700's 130 W, making it far more suitable for compact, thermally constrained systems. Its HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus is unusual and provides high bandwidth per watt, which can benefit certain memory-latency-sensitive tasks. The Vega M GL also carries display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for integrated use in laptops and portable devices, whereas the Pro 5700 has "No outputs" and appears intended for external rendering or compute tasks with no direct display connection. The Pro 5700 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface, while the Vega M GL uses an IGP interface, meaning the latter is permanently attached to a host processor and cannot be upgraded or moved.

For users prioritizing raw compute and graphics performance, the Pro 5700 is the unambiguous winner. For users prioritizing power efficiency and integration into a portable device, the Vega M GL offers a capable solution, but it sacrifices a significant amount of performance to achieve that form factor.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Architecture: GCN 4.0 vs RDNA 1.0
• Process Node: 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) vs 7 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 5,000 million vs 10,300 million
• Die Size: 208 mm² vs 251 mm²
• Transistor Density: 24.0M / mm² vs 41.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 931 MHz vs 1243 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1011 MHz vs 1350 MHz
• Memory Clock: 700 MHz / 1400 Mbps effective vs 1500 MHz / 12 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 8 GB
• Memory Type: HBM2 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 1024 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 179.2 GB/s vs 384.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1280 vs 2304
• TMUs: 80 vs 144
• ROPs: 32 vs 64
• Pixel Rate: 32.35 GPixel/s vs 86.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 80.88 GTexel/s vs 194.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 2.588 TFLOPS vs 6.221 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 12.44 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 65 W vs 130 W
• Power Connectors: None (Vega M GL has null entry) vs None (Pro 5700 has "None" entry)
• Suggested PSU: null vs 300 W
• Bus Interface: IGP vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs No outputs
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.3 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2018-01-31 vs 2020-08-03

Both cards are end-of-life products, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5700. It delivers 6.221 TFLOPS FP32 and 12.44 TFLOPS FP16, versus 2.588 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.588 TFLOPS FP16 for the RX Vega M GL.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon Pro 5700 in OpenCL?

A: The Pro 5700 scores 52787 versus 19549 for the Vega M GL, a delta of -63% from the Vega M GL's perspective, meaning the Pro 5700 is roughly 2.7 times faster.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 offers 384.0 GB/s with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. The RX Vega M GL offers 179.2 GB/s with 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The RX Vega M GL has a TDP of 65 W, which is less than half of the Radeon Pro 5700's 130 W TDP. The Pro 5700 also has a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Can either GPU be used for external display output?

A: The RX Vega M GL has display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is tied to a portable device's own display. The Radeon Pro 5700 has "No outputs," so it is not designed for direct display connection.

The Verdict

The database is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 wins this matchup outright with a 2-0 record in head-to-head tests. It is faster in OpenCL by 63% and in Vulkan by 55.6%, and it offers more than double the shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. Its 7 nm process and RDNA 1.0 architecture provide a modern foundation that the older GCN 4.0 Vega M GL cannot match. For any task that leverages compute or modern graphics APIs, the Pro 5700 is the correct choice.

The RX Vega M GL is not without purpose, but its strengths lie outside raw performance. Its 65 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light portable devices where power and thermals are the primary constraints. Its HBM2 memory, while lower in total bandwidth, offers a wide 1024-bit interface that is efficient for its power class. It also supports a portable-device-dependent display output, making it a self-contained graphics solution for a laptop or compact system. The Pro 5700, with no display outputs and a 130 W TDP, is clearly aimed at workstation-like environments where an external compute or rendering workload is the priority.

Users who need maximum performance for rendering, simulation, or modern gaming should choose the AMD Radeon Pro 5700. Users who need a low-power integrated GPU for a portable device, and who can accept roughly half the performance or less, should consider the RX Vega M GL. The data does not support any scenario where the Vega M GL outperforms the Pro 5700, but it does support a scenario where the Vega M GL is the more practical fit for a specific form factor.