AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent performance gap across all three shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT scores 80376 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16's 29650, a delta of -63.1% when viewed from the Pro Vega 16's perspective. This is not a marginal lead; it is a decisive margin that places the RX 5600 XT in a different performance tier entirely.

Geekbench OpenCL results reinforce the trend. The RX 5600 XT posts 68537, while the Pro Vega 16 manages 18268. The delta here is even larger at -73.3%, meaning the Pro Vega 16 delivers less than a third of the RX 5600 XT's compute throughput in this workload. For applications that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration, the difference is substantial enough to affect real-world usability.

The Vulkan test follows the same pattern. The RX 5600 XT records 56218, against the Pro Vega 16's 21832, a -61.2% delta. While Vulkan shows the smallest relative gap of the three tests, it still represents a massive absolute difference. In every head-to-head comparison available in the database, the RX 5600 XT wins outright. The Pro Vega 16 does not claim a single victory across the three recorded benchmarks.

When placed against the broader field, the two cards sit close in percentile ranking. The Pro Vega 16 holds a 68th percentile versus all GPUs, while the RX 5600 XT sits at the 66th percentile. Yet the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story: the Pro Vega 16 averages 23250, while the RX 5600 XT averages 20713. This discrepancy highlights how percentile ranks are influenced by the distribution of all tested GPUs, while the head-to-head data isolates the two cards directly.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600 XT wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by the OpenCL score being nearly four times higher than the Pro Vega 16's. This suggests the RX 5600 XT is better suited for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing.

In graphics API workloads, Metal and Vulkan, the RX 5600 XT also dominates. Metal is particularly notable, with a score nearly 2.7 times higher. This indicates strong driver optimization and hardware efficiency for Apple's graphics stack, despite being a Windows-oriented card. Vulkan shows the closest contest, but the RX 5600 XT still leads by a wide margin.

The Pro Vega 16's only advantage lies in its power envelope. With a TDP of 75 W versus the RX 5600 XT's 150 W, it draws half the power. For integrated or portable deployments where thermal and power constraints are strict, the Pro Vega 16 is the more practical choice. Its integrated form factor (IGP) and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for compact systems, whereas the RX 5600 XT requires a dual-slot cooler and a single 8-pin power connector.

However, in pure performance terms, the Pro Vega 16 does not win any benchmark category. The data shows zero wins for the Pro Vega 16 and three wins for the RX 5600 XT. Users prioritizing compute or graphics performance should look exclusively at the RX 5600 XT; those prioritizing low power consumption in a constrained chassis may consider the Pro Vega 16, but must accept a significant performance trade-off.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT is the clear performance winner based on the recorded benchmark data. It outperforms the Pro Vega 16 by 61% to 73% across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan tests. For any workload that values raw throughput, the RX 5600 XT is the only rational choice between these two.

The Pro Vega 16, however, serves a distinct niche. Its 75 W TDP, integrated form factor, and HBM2 memory (307.2 GB/s bandwidth on a 1024-bit bus) make it suitable for specialized systems where power and space are at a premium. The RX 5600 XT, with its 150 W TDP, dual-slot design, and external power connector, cannot fit in such environments.

Users who need maximum compute performance should select the RX 5600 XT without hesitation. Users building ultra-compact or low-power systems, where the Pro Vega 16's integrated design is a requirement, will find it adequate but should not expect competitive performance against the RX 5600 XT. The database shows no scenario where the Pro Vega 16 wins a benchmark, so its appeal rests entirely on form factor and power efficiency, not performance.

The RX 5600 XT also offers more memory (6 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB HBM2) and a larger bus width advantage in practical terms, though the Pro Vega 16's HBM2 bandwidth is slightly higher (307.2 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s). This bandwidth edge does not translate into benchmark wins, indicating that the RX 5600 XT's architecture and clock speeds more than compensate.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 has a higher average score of 23250, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT's 20713. However, this average is drawn from different benchmark sets, and the head-to-head tests show the RX 5600 XT winning all three.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5600 XT in Metal?

A: The RX 5600 XT scores 80376 in Geekbench Metal, while the Pro Vega 16 scores 29650, resulting in a -63.1% delta from the Pro Vega 16's perspective.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 16 have any performance advantage?

A: No, the Pro Vega 16 does not win any of the three head-to-head benchmarks. Its only advantages are a lower TDP of 75 W and an integrated form factor.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Pro Vega 16 has a bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s using HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, while the RX 5600 XT has 288.0 GB/s using GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The Pro Vega 16 has a slight bandwidth edge, but it does not translate into benchmark wins.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RX 5600 XT has a pixel rate of 99.84 GPixel/s, while the Pro Vega 16 has 38.08 GPixel/s, making the RX 5600 XT roughly 2.6 times faster in this metric.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Pro Vega 16 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the RX 5600 XT uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, which contributes to the latter's higher clock speeds and efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip based on GCN 5.0, while the RX 5600 XT uses the Navi 10 chip based on RDNA 1.0. This is a fundamental divide: GCN 5.0 is a mature, compute-oriented design, while RDNA 1.0 was built for gaming efficiency and higher clock speeds.

The process node difference is significant. The Pro Vega 16 is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the RX 5600 XT uses a 7 nm process at TSMC. The RX 5600 XT also has stated transistor details: 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, with a density of 41.0M per mm². The Pro Vega 16's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Clock speeds reflect the architectural and process differences. The Pro Vega 16 runs at a base of 815 MHz and a boost of 1190 MHz. The RX 5600 XT runs at a base of 1130 MHz, a game clock of 1375 MHz, and a boost of 1560 MHz. The RX 5600 XT's higher clocks, combined with more shading units (2304 versus 1024), TMs (144 versus 64), and ROPs (64 versus 32), explain its benchmark dominance.

The memory subsystems also differ. The Pro Vega 16 uses 4 GB of HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5600 XT uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 16's HBM2 offers higher bandwidth per pin, but the RX 5600 XT compensates with more memory and higher effective clock speeds (12 Gbps versus 2.4 Gbps).

The RX 5600 XT supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro Vega 16 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 5600 XT supports Vulkan 1.4 against the Pro Vega 16's Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every key specification. The Pro Vega 16 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 5600 XT has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, roughly doubling each count.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Pro Vega 16's base is 815 MHz and boost is 1190 MHz. The RX 5600 XT's base is 1130 MHz, game clock is 1375 MHz, and boost is 1560 MHz. The RX 5600 XT's boost is 370 MHz higher than the Pro Vega 16's.

Memory configurations diverge. The Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of HBM2 at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) with a 1024-bit bus and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5600 XT has 6 GB of GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) with a 192-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute rates favor the RX 5600 XT. Its FP32 performance is 7.188 TFLOPS against the Pro Vega 16's 2.437 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 14.38 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate is 99.84 GPixel/s versus 38.08 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 224.6 GTexel/s versus 76.16 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design differ. The Pro Vega 16 has a TDP of 75 W and is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors. The RX 5600 XT has a TDP of 150 W, is dual-slot, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The RX 5600 XT is 267 mm long (10.5 inches). Display outputs also differ: the Pro Vega 16 is portable device dependent, while the RX 5600 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The RX 5600 XT has a launch MSRP of 279 USD. The Pro Vega 16 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life, with the Pro Vega 16 released on 2018-11-13 and the RX 5600 XT on 2020-01-20.