AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 wins all three head-to-head benchmark comparisons against AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Vega 20 scores 26,679 against the Vega 16's 18,268, a 46% advantage. This is the most decisive margin in the entire comparison and reflects a fundamental difference in raw compute throughput between the two mobile GPUs.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Vega 20 posts 26,410 versus 21,832, a 21% lead. The Vulkan result shows a more moderate but still substantial performance gap, indicating that the Vega 20's architectural advantages translate across different API workloads. The narrowest margin comes in Geekbench Metal, where the Vega 20 scores 30,427 against 29,650, a 2.6% edge. This close result suggests that Metal optimizations narrow the gap between the two parts, though the Vega 20 still finishes ahead.

The average benchmark score reinforces the trend. The Vega 20 averages 27,839 across all recorded tests, while the Vega 16 averages 23,250. That difference places the Vega 20 in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Vega 16 sits in the 68th percentile. The delta of roughly 4,589 points in average score represents a meaningful tier separation, not just a marginal clock speed bump.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The Vega 20's average score of 27,839 sits within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883), within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (27,973), and within 0.6% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020). It even edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, which averages 27,565, by 1%. For the Vega 16, its average of 23,250 matches the NVIDIA P106-100 exactly (23,249, delta 0%), sits 0.1% below the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (23,273), and trails the AMD Radeon R9 M290X (23,276) by 0.1% and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 (23,315) by 0.3%. These rival comparisons show that the Vega 20 competes in a higher performance class entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 averages 27,839 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 averages 23,250. The Vega 20 holds a 19.7% advantage in average score.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the Vega 20 scores 30,427 and the Vega 16 scores 29,650. The Vega 20 wins by 2.6%, which is the closest margin in any of the three head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between these two GPUs?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Vega 20 leads by 46%. The Vega 20 scores 26,679 compared to the Vega 16's 18,268.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU achieve in the database?

A: The Vega 20 ranks in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 16 ranks in the 68th percentile. This five-percentile gap indicates the Vega 20 sits in a higher performance tier.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Vega 20 boosts to 1283 MHz, while the Vega 16 boosts to 1190 MHz. Both share the same 815 MHz base clock.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory configuration?

A: Both use 4 GB of HBM2 memory with a 1024-bit bus width, but the memory clocks differ. The Vega 20 runs at 740 MHz (1480 Mbps effective) with 189.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 16 runs at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same Vega 12 chip and GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The similarities end at the core configuration, where the Vega 20 deploys significantly more compute resources. The Vega 20 features 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Vega 16, by contrast, ships with 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. This 25% difference in shading units and TMUs explains much of the compute performance gap.

The clock behavior further differentiates the two. Both start at 815 MHz base, but the Vega 20 boosts to 1283 MHz versus 1190 MHz for the Vega 16. That 93 MHz boost advantage compounds with the additional shading units to produce the Vega 20's substantial lead in raw throughput. Pixel rate confirms this: the Vega 20 achieves 41.06 GPixel/s against 38.08 GPixel/s for the Vega 16, a modest 7.8% advantage. Texture rate shows a larger divergence: 102.6 GTexel/s versus 76.16 GTexel/s, a 34.7% gap driven by both extra TMUs and higher clocks.

The FP32 compute figures illustrate the architectural gap most clearly. The Vega 20 delivers 3.284 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Vega 16 delivers 2.437 TFLOPS, a 34.8% difference. FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with the Vega 20 offering 6.569 TFLOPS (2:1) against the Vega 16's 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1). Both GPUs expose the same API support: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with their GCN 5.0 architecture.

Memory architecture presents an interesting paradox. The Vega 20 has lower memory bandwidth at 189.4 GB/s compared to the Vega 16's 307.2 GB/s, despite both using 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus. The Vega 20 runs memory at 740 MHz (1480 Mbps effective), while the Vega 16 runs at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). This means the Vega 16 has 62% more bandwidth, yet the Vega 20 still wins all benchmarks. The compute advantage of the Vega 20 evidently outweighs its memory bandwidth deficit in the recorded workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across several key specification fields. The boost clock differs: 1283 MHz for the Vega 20, 1190 MHz for the Vega 16. Memory clocks also differ substantially: the Vega 20 runs at 740 MHz with 1480 Mbps effective, while the Vega 16 runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective. This produces a bandwidth difference, with the Vega 20 at 189.4 GB/s and the Vega 16 at 307.2 GB/s.

Core counts separate the two clearly. The Vega 20 has 1,280 shading units and 80 TMUs, while the Vega 16 has 1,024 shading units and 64 TMUs. Both maintain 32 ROPs. The compute rates reflect these differences: the Vega 20 achieves 41.06 GPixel/s and 102.6 GTexel/s, while the Vega 16 achieves 38.08 GPixel/s and 76.16 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 throughput follow suit, with the Vega 20 delivering 3.284 TFLOPS and 6.569 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.437 TFLOPS and 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Vega 16.

Thermal design power also differs. The Vega 20 has a 100 W TDP, while the Vega 16 has a 75 W TDP. This 25 W difference reflects the additional compute resources and higher boost clock of the Vega 20. Both GPUs share identical specifications elsewhere: 14 nm process, GlobalFoundries foundry, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, IGP slot width, portable device dependent display outputs, 4 GB HBM2 memory, 1024-bit bus width, and identical API support. Both were released on the same date and are marked as end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 wins in every recorded benchmark category, making the use-case split straightforward. Its 46% OpenCL advantage makes it the clear choice for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration. The 21% Vulkan lead positions it well for cross-platform graphics and compute applications that favor Vulkan's lower overhead. Even in Metal, where the Vega 16 comes closest, the Vega 20 still holds a 2.6% edge, making it the safer pick for macOS applications that rely on Metal.

The Vega 20's higher TDP of 100 W versus 75 W suggests it can sustain higher performance under load, and its 3.284 TFLOPS FP32 capability makes it suitable for demanding graphics workloads, 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated computation. The 73rd percentile ranking places it above the RTX 3090 in average score, an impressive result for a mobile integrated GPU. Its nearest rivals include the RX 7800M and GTX 980 Ti, both of which it matches or nearly matches, indicating the Vega 20 performs at a level comparable to desktop-class discrete GPUs from earlier generations.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still holds relevance in specific scenarios. Its 307.2 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the Vega 20's 189.4 GB/s by a wide margin, which could benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads that do not require maximum compute throughput. The lower 75 W TDP makes it more power-efficient, potentially extending battery life in portable devices. Its 68th percentile ranking and average score of 23,250 place it in the same performance class as the NVIDIA P106-100 and Radeon RX 6600M, making it a capable option for mainstream graphics tasks, video playback, and lighter creative workloads.

For users who prioritize compute performance, the Vega 20 is the unequivocal choice. For those who value memory bandwidth and lower power draw, the Vega 16 offers a different trade-off, though benchmark results indicate the Vega 20's compute advantages win out across all recorded tests. The data suggests the Vega 20 occupies a higher performance tier, while the Vega 16 serves as a more power-conscious alternative that still delivers respectable results in the 68th percentile of all GPUs.