AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 occupy very different positions in the database, and the recorded data leaves little ambiguity about the outcome. The RX 6700 XT, a desktop card built on the Navi 22 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, posts an average benchmark score of 27425 against the Pro Vega 16's 23250. More strikingly, it wins all three of the shared head-to-head tests, and by enormous margins: the Vulkan Geekbench score is more than four times higher, the Metal score more than five times higher. The Pro Vega 16 is an integrated mobile solution from the Vega 12 chip, and while its percentile placement of 68 across all recorded GPUs is respectable for that class, the RX 6700 XT sits at the 72nd percentile with dramatically higher throughput in every shared measurement.

The Verdict

The data supports exactly one conclusion for performance-sensitive buyers: the RX 6700 XT. It leads in Metal by 341.5 percent, in OpenCL by 141.7 percent, and in Vulkan by 328.3 percent. There is no benchmark in the database where the Pro Vega 16 wins. Its case rests entirely on context rather than raw scores. With a TDP of 75 watts, an IGP form factor, no power connectors, and HBM2 memory on a wide 1024-bit bus, it is designed for mobile workstations where power and space budgets are tight. The RX 6700 XT draws 230 watts, requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, occupies a dual-slot footprint, and measures 267 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. Anyone choosing between them in practice is choosing between a desktop gaming card and a soldered mobile graphics solution, and the benchmark data should be read with that framing in mind. Both products are end-of-life, so neither represents a current retail option; the comparison is useful mainly for evaluating legacy systems or used hardware.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 XT wins everywhere the two cards can be directly compared. In Geekbench Metal it scores 130896 against 29650, in Geekbench OpenCL 44152 against 18268, and in Geekbench Vulkan 93500 against 21832. It also carries a broader benchmark portfolio in the database, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2435, Passmark G3D results of 19786, and Passmark compute results of 9336, none of which have recorded counterparts for the Pro Vega 16. Its theoretical limits reinforce the gap: 13.21 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 2.437 TFLOPS, a pixel rate of 165.2 GPixel/s versus 38.08 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 413.0 GTexel/s versus 76.16 GTexel/s.

The Pro Vega 16's advantages are structural rather than measurable in framerates. Its 75-watt TDP is less than a third of the RX 6700 XT's 230 watts, it needs no external power connectors, and its IGP packaging means it adds no slot to a system at all. Its HBM2 memory, running at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective speed across a 1024-bit bus, delivers 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is remarkably close to the RX 6700 XT's 384.0 GB/s despite the latter's much larger overall performance envelope. For bandwidth-sensitive professional workloads in a power-constrained mobile chassis, that memory subsystem was the design's central strength.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs represent two distinct eras of AMD design. The RX 6700 XT uses the Navi 22 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated at TSMC on a 7 nm process. The die measures 335 mm² and packs 17,200 million transistors, a density of 51.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Pro Vega 16 uses the Vega 12 chip on the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process; transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database for this part.

The shader configuration differs by a factor of 2.5: 2560 shading units, 160 texture units, and 64 render outputs on the Navi 22 card, versus 1024 shading units, 64 texture units, and 32 render outputs on the Vega 12 part. The RX 6700 XT also includes 40 ray tracing cores, a feature the GCN-based Pro Vega 16 lacks entirely. Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational advancement, with a base of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and a boost of 2581 MHz on the RX 6700 XT, against a base of 815 MHz and a boost of 1190 MHz on the Pro Vega 16.

Memory philosophy diverges sharply. The RX 6700 XT carries 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus running at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The Pro Vega 16 pairs its modest 4 GB capacity with HBM2 on that wide 1024-bit interface. The platform interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the newer card, PCIe 3.0 x16 for the older one. API support is broader on the RDNA 2.0 part, with DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared against DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 on the Pro Vega 16; both support OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs are fixed on the desktop card, with one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a ports, while the Pro Vega 16's outputs are listed as portable-device dependent. The RX 6700 XT was released in March 2021 at a launch MSRP of 479 USD; the Pro Vega 16 dates to November 2018 and no launch MSRP is recorded.

FAQ

Q: Is the RX 6700 XT faster than the Pro Vega 16 in every shared benchmark?

A: Yes. The database records three head-to-head tests and the RX 6700 XT wins all three: Metal (130896 vs 29650), OpenCL (44152 vs 18268), and Vulkan (93500 vs 21832).

Q: How do their average scores compare against rival GPUs?

A: The RX 6700 XT's average of 27425 places it within a percent of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Mobile (27435), half a percent behind the GeForce RTX 3090 (27565), one percent ahead of the RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell (27135), and slightly behind the Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27839). The Pro Vega 16's 23250 sits essentially level with the P106-100 (23249), the RX 6600M (23273), and the R9 M290X (23276).

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the RX 6700 XT. It has 40 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 design, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. The Pro Vega 16 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: Which one uses less power?

A: The Pro Vega 16, with a TDP of 75 watts and no external power connectors. The RX 6700 XT has a 230-watt TDP, uses one 6-pin and one 8-pin connector, and carries a suggested PSU rating of 550 watts.

Q: How does memory compare?

A: The RX 6700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 delivering 384.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus. The Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of HBM2 delivering 307.2 GB/s over a 1024-bit bus. Capacity heavily favors the newer card; the older one compensates with a very wide interface.

Q: Are either of these still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal result is the widest gap of the three: 130896 for the RX 6700 XT against 29650 for the Pro Vega 16, a lead of 341.5 percent. Metal is the primary graphics API on Apple platforms, and this comparison is particularly apt given the Pro Vega 16's origin as a Mac-oriented Radeon Pro part. A fivefold advantage in this API indicates that even in the Pro Vega 16's home territory, the RDNA 2.0 architecture overwhelms it.

Geekbench Vulkan shows 93500 versus 21832, a 328.3 percent margin. Vulkan is the cross-platform API where both cards' driver stacks are exercised directly, and the result confirms that the Metal gap is not an API-specific anomaly. Geekbench OpenCL narrows the margin considerably but still lands firmly on the RX 6700 XT's side: 44152 versus 18268, a 141.7 percent lead. The relative resilience of the Pro Vega 16 in OpenCL is consistent with GCN's historical strength in compute-oriented workloads and with its high-bandwidth HBM2 memory, but a roughly two-and-a-half-fold deficit remains decisive.

Supporting data from the RX 6700 XT's broader portfolio reinforces the picture. Its Passmark G3D score of 19786, Passmark GPU compute score of 9336, and 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 2435 have no recorded equivalents for the Pro Vega 16, but its percentile placement of 72 versus 68 across the full database confirms the same ordering at the aggregate level.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Navi 22 (RX 6700 XT) vs Vega 12 (Pro Vega 16)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 vs GCN 5.0
• Process node: 7 nm at TSMC vs 14 nm at GlobalFoundries
• Shading units: 2560 vs 1024; texture units 160 vs 64; render outputs 64 vs 32
• Ray tracing cores: 40 vs none
• Clocks: 2321 MHz base, 2424 MHz game, 2581 MHz boost vs 815 MHz base, 1190 MHz boost
• Memory: 12 GB GDDR6, 192-bit, 384.0 GB/s vs 4 GB HBM2, 1024-bit, 307.2 GB/s; memory clock 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) vs 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective)
• FP32 compute: 13.21 TFLOPS vs 2.437 TFLOPS; FP16 26.43 vs 4.874 TFLOPS
• Pixel and texture rates: 165.2 GPixel/s and 413.0 GTexel/s vs 38.08 GPixel/s and 76.16 GTexel/s
• TDP: 230 W vs 75 W; suggested PSU 550 W vs none listed; power connectors one 6-pin plus one 8-pin vs none
• Form factor: dual-slot add-in card, 267 x 110 x 40 mm, vs IGP
• Bus: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4 vs DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.3; both OpenGL 4.6
• Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a vs portable-device dependent
• Release: March 2021 vs November 2018; both end-of-life