AMD Radeon Pro Duo vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH Comparison

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the AMD Radeon Pro Duo and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH in OpenCL workloads?

A: The recorded Geekbench OpenCL score for the Radeon Pro Duo is 35,860, while the RX Vega M GH scores 27,125. The Pro Duo leads by 32.2% in this specific test, which is the only common benchmark where both devices have recorded data.

Q: Which GPU sits higher in the overall performance percentile ranking?

A: The Radeon Pro Duo ranks at the 80th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the RX Vega M GH ranks at the 74th percentile. This indicates the Pro Duo outperforms a larger share of the GPU population in aggregate benchmark scores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and how do they compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Pro Duo has an average benchmark score of 35,860, placing it within 1.2% of the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5300M (36,529). The RX Vega M GH averages 29,197, essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, 0% delta) and 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A370M (29,175).

Q: What are the architectural node and transistor differences between these two AMD GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro Duo uses the GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, packing 8,900 million transistors on a 596 mm² die. The RX Vega M GH uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The Vega M has a higher transistor density at 24.0M per mm² versus 14.9M per mm² for the Pro Duo.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth, and what memory types do they use?

A: The Radeon Pro Duo features 4 GB of HBM memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX Vega M GH features 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s. The Pro Duo’s bandwidth is 2.5 times higher.

Q: How do the shading unit counts and texture rates differ?

A: The Pro Duo has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, producing a texture rate of 256.0 GTexel/s. The RX Vega M GH has 1,536 shading units and 96 TMUs, yielding a texture rate of 114.2 GTexel/s. Both have 64 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct generations of AMD’s graphics architecture. The Radeon Pro Duo is built on GCN 3.0, with the chip codename Capsaicin, while the RX Vega M GH uses GCN 4.0, with the chip Polaris 22. This generational difference is visible in the manufacturing process: the Pro Duo uses a 28 nm node at TSMC, whereas the Vega M GH uses a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries. The newer process allows the Vega M to achieve a higher transistor density (24.0M per mm²) despite having fewer total transistors (5,000 million versus 8,900 million) and a much smaller die (208 mm² versus 596 mm²).

The Pro Duo is a dual-GPU card, in the sense that its architecture is designed for maximum compute throughput, though the database lists it as a single entry with 4,096 shading units. The RX Vega M GH is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), with a slot width listed as IGP and a bus interface of IGP, meaning it is designed for portable devices. This fundamental difference in form factor explains much of the performance and power divergence.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro Duo supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Vega M GH supports Vulkan 1.3, a newer version. Both have 64 ROPs, but the Pro Duo has 256 TMUs versus 96 for the Vega M, and 4,096 shading units versus 1,536. The pixel rate is slightly higher on the Vega M at 76.16 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the Pro Duo, despite the Pro Duo having a higher texture rate (256.0 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s). This is an interesting inversion: the integrated part achieves more pixel throughput per ROP, likely due to higher clock speeds.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The Pro Duo uses 4 GB of HBM on a 4096-bit bus with a memory clock of 500 MHz (1000 Mbps effective), yielding 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with a memory clock of 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), yielding 204.8 GB/s. The Pro Duo’s wider bus is the dominant factor in its bandwidth advantage.

Power and thermal characteristics show a stark contrast. The Pro Duo has a TDP of 350 W, requires three 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 750 W PSU. It is a dual-slot card measuring 277 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The Vega M GH has a TDP of 100 W, no power connectors listed, no suggested PSU, and no dimensions, consistent with its IGP status. The Pro Duo’s display outputs include 1x HDMI 1.4a and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Vega M GH’s outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”

The Pro Duo is from the Radeon Pro GCN generation, released on 2016-04-25, with a predecessor of FirePro GCN and a successor of Radeon Pro Polaris. The Vega M GH is from the Vega (Vega M) generation, released on 2018-01-31, with no predecessor or successor listed. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro Duo is the clear performance leader in compute workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 35,860 is 32.2% higher than the RX Vega M GH’s 27,125, and its average benchmark score of 35,860 places it at the 80th percentile, versus the 74th percentile for the Vega M GH. For any user prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Pro Duo is the superior choice.

However, the choice is not purely about performance. The RX Vega M GH is an integrated GPU with a TDP of 100 W, no external power connectors, and no suggested PSU, making it suitable for portable devices where space and power are constrained. The Pro Duo, with a TDP of 350 W, three 8-pin connectors, and a 750 W suggested PSU, is a dual-slot desktop card that requires a substantial power supply and chassis space.

The data suggests that the Pro Duo targets professional compute tasks where the highest OpenCL scores matter, as evidenced by its proximity to the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (35,520, 1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435, 1.2% delta). The Vega M GH, on the other hand, sits close to the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, 0% delta) and the Intel Arc A370M (29,175, 0.1% delta), indicating a mid-range compute tier.

In summary, the Pro Duo is for users who need maximum compute performance and can accommodate its power and size. The Vega M GH is for users who need a modest but functional GPU integrated into a portable system, with a Vulkan score of 31,268 that suggests it handles modern graphics APIs reasonably well. The Pro Duo wins the only head-to-head benchmark, so the verdict is straightforward: performance goes to the Pro Duo, practicality goes to the Vega M GH.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two GPUs:

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Duo | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,900 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 596 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 14.9M / mm² | 24.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1063 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1190 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 500 MHz, 1000 Mbps effective | 800 MHz, 1600 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | HBM | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 256 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.00 GPixel/s | 76.16 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 256.0 GTexel/s | 114.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.192 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.192 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 350 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 3x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 750 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2016-04-25 | 2018-01-31 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon Pro Duo scores 35,860, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH scores 27,125. The Pro Duo wins with a 32.2% performance advantage. This is a substantial gap, reflecting the Pro Duo’s larger shading unit count (4,096 versus 1,536), higher texture rate (256.0 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s), and greater memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s).

The Pro Duo’s OpenCL score places it just 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 (35,520) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile (35,435). It is also 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA T1000 (36,289) and 1.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5300M (36,529). These deltas show the Pro Duo sits in a competitive band with other high-end compute GPUs.

The Vega M GH’s OpenCL score of 27,125 is its only recorded OpenCL result, but it also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 31,268. That Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Vega M GH performs better under Vulkan workloads. Its average benchmark score of 29,197 combines both results.

The Pro Duo has a single benchmark entry (OpenCL), so its average benchmark score equals its OpenCL score at 35,860. The Vega M GH’s average of 29,197 is 18.6% lower than the Pro Duo’s average. The head-to-head wins tally shows the Pro Duo with 1 win and the Vega M GH with 0 wins.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Duo wins decisively in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. Its 32.2% lead over the Vega M GH in Geekbench OpenCL is the largest recorded gap in this comparison. The Pro Duo also wins in throughput metrics: FP32 compute is 8.192 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS, texture rate is 256.0 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s, and memory bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. These numbers point to the Pro Duo being the choice for tasks that stress parallel compute, such as rendering, simulation, and data processing. Its 80th percentile ranking and proximity to the Quadro GV100 reinforce its position as a high-end compute card.

The RX Vega M GH does not win any recorded benchmarks, but it has advantages in specific areas. Its pixel rate is higher at 76.16 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, meaning it can fill more pixels per second despite having fewer shading units. Its Vulkan score of 31,268 is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating better performance in Vulkan-based applications. The Vega M GH also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Pro Duo supports 1.2.170, so the newer API version may be preferable for compatibility with latest Vulkan features.

In terms of power efficiency, the Vega M GH’s 100 W TDP is far lower than the Pro Duo’s 350 W. For portable devices, this is a critical advantage. The Vega M GH’s IGP form factor means it can be integrated into compact systems without external power connectors or a high-capacity PSU. The Pro Duo requires a 750 W PSU and three 8-pin connectors, which limits it to desktop workstations with robust power delivery.

The Pro Duo wins on raw performance and compute capabilities, while the Vega M GH wins on portability, power consumption, and newer API support. The recorded data shows no benchmark where the Vega M GH outperforms the Pro Duo, so the use-case split is clear: the Pro Duo for maximum compute in a fixed workstation, the Vega M GH for integrated graphics in a portable system where power and space are limited. The Vega M GH’s 74th percentile ranking still places it above most GPUs, so it is not a weak performer by global standards, just outclassed by the Pro Duo in absolute terms.