AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison places the AMD Radeon PRO V620 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 in two distinct performance tiers. The recorded average benchmark scores show a decisive separation: the PRO V620 averages 136,472 points, while the Pro Vega 64 averages 72,379 points. That is an 88.5% advantage for the newer card, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Vega 64 sits in the 91st percentile. The head-to-head data reinforces this gap, with the PRO V620 winning both recorded tests.

The PRO V620 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that demand maximum throughput. Its OpenCL score of 128,580 is 80.9% higher than the Vega 64’s 71,094, and its Vulkan score of 144,364 is 94.6% higher than the Vega 64’s 74,174. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap in raw compute capability. The PRO V620 also offers double the memory capacity at 32 GB versus 16 GB, along with a much wider effective memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s compared to 402.4 GB/s.

The Pro Vega 64, however, remains relevant for a specific niche. Its status as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no dedicated power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs suggests it was designed for Apple Mac systems with fixed hardware configurations. The data shows its Metal benchmark score of 71,868, a test the PRO V620 does not have, indicating the Vega 64’s continued utility in Apple-centric environments. Users constrained to that ecosystem, who cannot install a discrete dual-slot card, would find the Vega 64 to be their only option among these two.

For anyone building or upgrading a workstation with PCIe slot availability, the PRO V620 is the only logical pick. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (average 135,774, only 0.5% behind) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (average 135,396, 0.8% behind), show that the PRO V620 sits at the top of a very competitive pack. The Vega 64, by contrast, trades blows with cards like the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (average 72,098, 0.4% behind) and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (average 73,370, 1.4% ahead). Neither card is a slouch in its respective tier, but the performance chasm between them is unbridgeable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural generations. The PRO V620 uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This node transition alone explains a substantial portion of the performance gap: the PRO V620 packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The Vega 64 contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a density of only 25.3 million per square millimeter. The newer card crams more than twice the transistors into nearly the same silicon area.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The PRO V620 runs at a base clock of 1825 MHz and boosts to 2200 MHz, while the Vega 64 operates at 1250 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost. The PRO V620’s boost clock is 63% higher than the Vega 64’s boost clock. Memory technology also diverges: the PRO V620 uses GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus, while the Vega 64 uses HBM2 across a 2048-bit bus. Despite the Vega 64 having a much wider bus, the PRO V620’s higher memory clock (16 Gbps effective versus 1572 Mbps effective) yields superior bandwidth.

Compute resources are significantly expanded on the newer part. The PRO V620 features 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation pipelines. The Vega 64 has 4,096 shaders, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The PRO V620 also introduces 72 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Vega 64. This is a hardware-level capability for accelerated ray tracing workloads, something the older GCN architecture cannot offer.

The API support differs as well. The PRO V620 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Vega 64 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is also newer on the PRO V620 (version 1.4 versus 1.3 on the Vega 64). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The production status for both is end-of-life, but the PRO V620 was released on November 3, 2021, while the Vega 64 dates back to June 26, 2017.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620. Its FP32 throughput is 20.28 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 64, an 83.4% advantage. Its FP16 performance is 40.55 TFLOPS versus 22.12 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory do these cards offer?

A: The PRO V620 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus and 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 64 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Vega 64 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The PRO V620 includes 72 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The PRO V620 has a TDP of 300 W, requires a 700 W suggested power supply, and uses two 8-pin power connectors. The Pro Vega 64 has a TDP of 250 W, is an integrated graphics processor with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The PRO V620 is significantly better. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, it scored 144,364 against the Vega 64’s 74,174, a 94.6% delta. The PRO V620 also supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3).

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The PRO V620 was released on November 3, 2021, and the Pro Vega 64 on June 26, 2017.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the database:

• Chip: Navi 21 (PRO V620) versus Vega 10 (Pro Vega 64)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 versus GCN 5.0
• Process Node: 7 nm versus 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 26,800 million versus 12,500 million
• Die Size: 520 mm² versus 495 mm²
• Transistor Density: 51.5M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1825 MHz versus 1250 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2200 MHz versus 1350 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 32 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus HBM2
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 2048 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 4608 versus 4096
• TMUs: 288 versus 256
• ROPs: 128 versus 64
• Ray Tracing Cores: 72 versus none
• Pixel Rate: 281.6 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 633.6 GTexel/s versus 345.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 20.28 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS
• FP16: 40.55 TFLOPS versus 22.12 TFLOPS
• TDP: 300 W versus 250 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 700 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 120 mm height, 50 mm width versus not listed
• Release Date: November 3, 2021 versus June 26, 2017

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark comparisons between these cards, and the PRO V620 wins both.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the PRO V620 scores 128,580 against the Vega 64’s 71,094. The delta is 80.9% in favor of the newer card. This is the larger of the two gaps in absolute terms, but the smaller in percentage terms. OpenCL workloads that stress general-purpose compute will see a near doubling of performance on the PRO V620. This aligns with the FP32 and FP16 throughput differences, where the PRO V620 holds 83.4% and 83.4% advantages respectively.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the PRO V620 scores 144,364 against the Vega 64’s 74,174, a 94.6% delta. This is the closest to a doubling of performance in either test. Vulkan’s low-level API overhead appears to favor the RDNA 2.0 architecture more strongly than the older GCN design. The PRO V620’s higher clock speeds, larger shader count, and faster memory subsystem all contribute to this result. Interestingly, the PRO V620’s Vulkan score is also higher than its own OpenCL score by 12.3%, while the Vega 64’s Vulkan score is only 4.3% above its OpenCL score. This suggests the newer architecture extracts more from Vulkan’s explicit control model.

The Vega 64 does have one benchmark the PRO V620 does not: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 71,868. This is notable because the Vega 64’s generation is described as Radeon Pro Mac, indicating Apple platform integration. The PRO V620, by contrast, has no display outputs at all, making it a compute-only accelerator. Users relying on Metal APIs in macOS environments would have no alternative but the Vega 64, as the PRO V620 cannot be used for display output and its OpenCL and Vulkan scores do not translate to Metal workloads.

The wins tally stands at 2 for the PRO V620 and 0 for the Vega 64 in shared tests. The average benchmark scores, 136,472 versus 72,379, place the PRO V620 in the 96th percentile of all GPUs and the Vega 64 in the 91st percentile. While both are above average, the PRO V620 is firmly in enthusiast-tier territory, matching or exceeding cards like the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, 0.5% behind) and NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, 0.9% behind). The Vega 64, meanwhile, competes with the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098, 0.4% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71,768, 0.9% behind), a much older performance class.