AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs AMD Radeon RX 590 Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 590 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16

The AMD Radeon RX 590 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 represent two very different interpretations of AMD's graphics hardware from the same era, with the RX 590 built as a high-throughput gaming GPU and the Pro Vega 16 designed as a power-efficient mobile solution for professional workloads. The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the RX 590, which posts an average benchmark score of 24,744 compared to the Pro Vega 16's 23,250, placing the RX 590 in the 70th percentile of all GPUs while the Pro Vega 16 sits at the 68th percentile. However, the gap between these two cards is far more nuanced than the headline averages suggest, particularly when examining individual workload performance, architectural choices, and the specific contexts where each GPU was designed to excel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench Metal, and the results are striking in their one-sidedness. The RX 590 delivers a score of 48,407, while the Pro Vega 16 manages just 29,650 — a delta of 63.3% in favor of the RX 590. This is not a marginal victory; the RX 590 outperforms the Pro Vega 16 by nearly two-thirds in Apple's Metal API test, which is particularly relevant given the Pro Vega 16's positioning in the Radeon Pro Mac lineup. The magnitude of this win suggests fundamental differences in raw compute throughput, as the RX 590's FP32 performance of 7.119 TFLOPS dwarfs the Pro Vega 16's 2.437 TFLOPS, a nearly 3x advantage that manifests clearly in this benchmark.

Beyond the Metal test, the RX 590 also shows its strength in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores 1,081 points. While the Pro Vega 16 has no direct equivalent score in this test, the RX 590's performance here aligns with its overall benchmark profile, which places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (24,763 average score) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A350M (24,647). The Pro Vega 16, by contrast, sits in a tighter competitive cluster, matching the NVIDIA P106-100 exactly (both at 23,250 vs 23,249, a 0% delta) and trailing the AMD Radeon RX 6600M by just 0.1% (23,250 vs 23,273).

The average benchmark scores tell a broader story: the RX 590's 24,744 average is 6.4% higher than the Pro Vega 16's 23,250. However, the Pro Vega 16 does have additional benchmark data points that reveal its character — it scores 18,268 in Geekbench OpenCL and 21,832 in Geekbench Vulkan, showing respectable cross-API performance that suggests it is not a slouch in compute-oriented tasks, even if its Metal performance lags significantly behind the RX 590.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial, starting with the manufacturing process. The RX 590 uses a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Pro Vega 16 is built on a 14 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries. This process advantage allows the RX 590 to pack 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The Pro Vega 16's transistor count and die size are not specified in the data, but its architecture tells a different story.

The RX 590 is based on the Polaris 30 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation. It features 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with clock speeds of 1,469 MHz base and 1,545 MHz boost. The Pro Vega 16, meanwhile, uses the Vega 12 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture from the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation. It has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but its clocks are dramatically lower at 815 MHz base and 1,190 MHz boost — a consequence of its 75 W TDP versus the RX 590's 175 W TDP.

Memory configurations diverge sharply as well. The RX 590 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Pro Vega 16 opts for 4 GB of HBM2 on a massive 1024-bit bus, achieving 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth at just 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). This is a fascinating trade-off: the Pro Vega 16 has 20% more memory bandwidth despite having half the memory capacity, thanks to HBM2's wide bus design. The RX 590 compensates with higher clock speeds and more compute units.

Feature support also differs: the RX 590 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Pro Vega 16 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), giving the Pro Vega 16 a slight edge in API feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 590's FP16 performance is 7.119 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the Pro Vega 16's FP16 is 4.874 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio — meaning the Pro Vega 16 dedicates hardware to FP16 compute, a common trait in professional GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 590 wins decisively in raw gaming and general-purpose compute scenarios. Its 63.3% advantage in Geekbench Metal, combined with its 3x advantage in FP32 throughput, makes it the clear choice for any workload that leverages traditional shader-based rendering or single-precision math. The RX 590's 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 222.5 GTexel/s texture rate, and 49.44 GPixel/s pixel rate all point to a GPU that can sustain high frame rates in demanding games, particularly at resolutions where its 8 GB GDDR5 buffer provides ample headroom. Its 70th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with nearest rivals like the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (within 0.1%) and AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (1.2% ahead), places it in solidly mainstream-to-upper-midrange territory.

The Pro Vega 16, despite losing the Metal benchmark, has its own areas of strength. Its 307.2 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the RX 590's 256.0 GB/s by 20%, which can be advantageous in bandwidth-sensitive workloads like certain compute kernels or high-resolution texture streaming. Its HBM2 memory operates at a much lower clock (1200 MHz vs 2000 MHz) but compensates with a 1024-bit bus, a design choice that prioritizes bandwidth efficiency over raw clock speed. The Pro Vega 16's 2:1 FP16 ratio (4.874 TFLOPS) versus the RX 590's 1:1 ratio (7.119 TFLOPS) suggests the Pro Vega 16 is better optimized for workloads that can exploit half-precision math, which is increasingly common in machine learning inference and certain scientific simulations.

The Pro Vega 16's 75 W TDP is also a significant advantage in mobile or compact form factors, where the RX 590's 175 W TDP and dual-slot cooling requirement would be prohibitive. The Pro Vega 16 is designated as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, indicating its intended use in laptops or all-in-one systems, whereas the RX 590 is a 241 mm (9.5 inches) dual-slot card with 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs requiring a 450 W power supply and a single 8-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the AMD Radeon RX 590 is the superior GPU in raw performance, with a 63.3% lead in the head-to-head Metal benchmark, a 6.4% higher average benchmark score, and a higher percentile ranking (70th vs 68th). For any user prioritizing gaming performance, general compute, or traditional rasterization workloads, the RX 590 is the unambiguous choice. The RX 590's nearest rivals — the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile and Intel Arc A350M — all cluster within 0.4% of its average score, confirming its competitive position in the market.

The Pro Vega 16, however, is not without merit. Its higher memory bandwidth, lower power consumption, and superior DirectX feature level (12_1 vs 12_0) make it a reasonable choice for specific professional or mobile scenarios where power efficiency and memory bandwidth matter more than raw compute throughput. The Pro Vega 16's average score places it in a tight competitive cluster with the NVIDIA P106-100 (0% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 6600M (-0.1% delta), showing that it holds its own among similarly positioned GPUs.

For desktop users building a gaming or general-purpose system, the RX 590 is the obvious pick — its performance advantages are too large to ignore, and its 8 GB memory capacity provides greater future-proofing. For users who need a power-efficient GPU for a mobile workstation or compact system with professional workloads that leverage FP16 compute or demand high memory bandwidth, the Pro Vega 16's unique characteristics — 307.2 GB/s bandwidth in a 75 W package — make it a defensible choice, though its 4 GB memory capacity is a limiting factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 590 delivers 7.119 TFLOPS FP32 performance, compared to the Pro Vega 16's 2.437 TFLOPS, making the RX 590 nearly 3x faster in single-precision compute workloads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Pro Vega 16 has 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth (via HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus), while the RX 590 has 256.0 GB/s (via GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus), giving the Pro Vega 16 a 20% bandwidth advantage.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The RX 590 scores 48,407 in Geekbench Metal, while the Pro Vega 16 scores 29,650, resulting in a 63.3% advantage for the RX 590.

Q: What are the power consumption characteristics of each GPU?

A: The RX 590 has a 175 W TDP and requires a 450 W power supply with a single 8-pin connector, while the Pro Vega 16 has a 75 W TDP and is classified as an IGP with no dedicated power connectors listed.

Q: What API feature levels do these GPUs support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.3, but the RX 590 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) while the Pro Vega 16 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), giving the Pro Vega 16 a higher DirectX feature level.

Q: What are the nearest performance rivals for each GPU?

A: The RX 590's closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile (within 0.1%), while the Pro Vega 16's closest rival is the NVIDIA P106-100 (0% delta), followed closely by the AMD Radeon RX 6600M (0.1% ahead).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 590 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 |

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

| Chip | Polaris 30 | Vega 12 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Generation | Polaris (RX 500) | Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | Not specified |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | Not specified |

| Base Clock | 1469 MHz | 815 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1545 MHz | 1190 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 307.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 144 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.44 GPixel/s | 38.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 222.5 GTexel/s | 76.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.119 TFLOPS | 2.437 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.119 TFLOPS (1:1) | 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 175 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) length | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2018-11-14 | 2018-11-13 |

| Launch MSRP | 279 USD | Not specified |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |