AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits this pairing into two very different profiles. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT dominates in graphics-centric workloads, winning 2 out of 3 head-to-head tests with decisive margins. Its strongest showing comes in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 137,249 against the Pro Vega 16's 29,650, a 362.9% advantage. The Vulkan result tells a similar story: 98,089 versus 21,832, a 349.3% lead. These are not close calls; the RX 6750 XT is in a different performance class for GPU-bound tasks.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 takes the single remaining test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 18,268 versus 16,360 for the RX 6750 XT. That is a 10.4% margin in favor of the Pro Vega 16. This is notable because OpenCL is a compute-oriented API, and the Pro Vega 16's architecture appears to handle that specific workload more efficiently despite being far behind elsewhere. However, this is the only benchmark where the Pro Vega 16 leads, and the absolute score difference is modest compared to the gaps in the other two tests.

The overall benchmark averages reinforce this split. The RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26,011, placing it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The Pro Vega 16 averages 23,250, sitting in the 68th percentile. The delta between their averages is roughly 11%, which is far smaller than the Metal or Vulkan gaps, largely because the Pro Vega 16's OpenCL win pulls its average up. The RX 6750 XT's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R9 M395X (0.5% ahead), AMD FirePro W7100 (0.6% ahead), AMD FirePro D700 (0.7% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (1.1% ahead). The Pro Vega 16 sits nearly level with the NVIDIA P106-100 (0% delta), AMD Radeon RX 6600M (0.1% behind), AMD Radeon R9 M290X (0.1% behind), and AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 (0.3% behind).

The Verdict

The choice depends entirely on the workload. For gaming, rendering, or any task that stresses DirectX or Vulkan pipelines, the RX 6750 XT is the clear pick. Its Metal score is over four times higher, and its Vulkan score is nearly four and a half times higher. The data shows no scenario where the Pro Vega 16 competes in those APIs. The RX 6750 XT also carries 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, which matters for modern game assets and high-resolution textures.

The Pro Vega 16 is only relevant if the primary application relies on OpenCL compute. Its 10.4% lead in that specific test is real, but it is a narrow margin and the absolute performance is still low. The Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of HBM2 memory, a 1024-bit bus, and a 75 W TDP, which makes it a low-power part intended for portable systems. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no standalone dimensions or power connectors. The RX 6750 XT, by contrast, is a dual-slot card requiring a 600 W power supply and a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector setup.

For most users, the RX 6750 XT is the only sensible option. The Pro Vega 16 is a specialized part for niche OpenCL compute scenarios within a constrained power envelope. The RX 6750 XT also has a higher percentile ranking (71st versus 68th) and a higher average score. The Pro Vega 16's only advantage is that one OpenCL result, and that does not translate into a broader performance story. Pick the RX 6750 XT unless the target application is exclusively OpenCL and the system cannot accommodate a discrete card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest delta in the head-to-head set is Geekbench Metal. The RX 6750 XT scores 137,249, which is 362.9% above the Pro Vega 16's 29,650. This is the single most lopsided result in the comparison. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and while these are AMD cards, the RX 6750 XT's RDNA 2.0 architecture clearly translates far better into Metal performance than the older GCN 5.0 design.

Geekbench Vulkan is nearly as one-sided. The RX 6750 XT records 98,089 points, a 349.3% improvement over the Pro Vega 16's 21,832. Vulkan is a cross-platform low-overhead API, and the RX 6750 XT's 40 ray tracing cores and 2,560 shading units provide a massive computational advantage. The Pro Vega 16 has 1,024 shading units and no ray tracing cores, which explains the magnitude of the gap.

The only reverse result is Geekbench OpenCL. The Pro Vega 16 scores 18,268, beating the RX 6750 XT's 16,360 by 10.4%. OpenCL is a compute standard, and the Pro Vega 16's HBM2 memory with a 1024-bit bus may favor certain compute patterns despite its lower clock speeds. The RX 6750 XT's memory clock is 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Pro Vega 16 runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective, yet the Pro Vega 16 still wins this test. This suggests the Vega architecture's compute scheduling is more efficient for OpenCL's specific workload, even with much lower raw specs.

The win count is 2-1 in favor of the RX 6750 XT, but the score differentials make that count misleading. The two wins for the RX 6750 XT are by hundreds of percentage points, while the Pro Vega 16's win is by a single-digit percentage. In practical terms, the RX 6750 XT is the dominant card in every scenario except a narrow OpenCL compute niche.

FAQ

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT scores 98,089 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 21,832. That is a 349.3% lead for the RX 6750 XT.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 16 win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The Pro Vega 16 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 18,268 points, beating the RX 6750 XT's 16,360 by 10.4%. This is the only head-to-head test it wins.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 6750 XT has an average benchmark score of 26,011, placing it in the 71st percentile. The Pro Vega 16 averages 23,250, in the 68th percentile. The RX 6750 XT is roughly 11% higher on average.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 16 has 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6750 XT has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested power supply, and uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector setup. The Pro Vega 16 has a 75 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors listed.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RX 6750 XT ranks in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The Pro Vega 16 ranks in the 68th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The RX 6750 XT uses RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC with 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. The Pro Vega 16 uses GCN 5.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with no transistor or die size data recorded. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap, as the 7 nm node allows for higher clock speeds and greater transistor density (51.3M per mm² for the RX 6750 XT).

The RX 6750 XT has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 40 ray tracing cores. The Pro Vega 16 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores. The RX 6750 XT's pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 416.0 GTexel/s. The Pro Vega 16's pixel rate is 38.08 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 76.16 GTexel/s. These are 4.4x and 5.5x differences, respectively, in favor of the RX 6750 XT.

The RX 6750 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro Vega 16 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The DirectX feature level difference is significant: 12_2 enables hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, while 12_1 is an older feature set. The Pro Vega 16's lack of ray tracing cores means it cannot accelerate ray-traced workloads at all, while the RX 6750 XT has 40 dedicated RT cores.

Specification Differences

The RX 6750 XT has a base clock of 2150 MHz, a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and a game clock of 2495 MHz. The Pro Vega 16 has a base clock of 815 MHz and a boost clock of 1190 MHz. The RX 6750 XT's memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Pro Vega 16's memory runs at 1200 MHz with 2.4 Gbps effective. The RX 6750 XT's FP32 performance is 13.31 TFLOPS and FP16 is 26.62 TFLOPS (2:1). The Pro Vega 16's FP32 is 2.437 TFLOPS and FP16 is 4.874 TFLOPS (2:1). The RX 6750 XT is over five times faster in raw FP32 compute.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The RX 6750 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 16 uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, yielding 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6750 XT has a higher total bandwidth, though the Pro Vega 16's HBM2 provides a wider bus. The RX 6750 XT is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. The Pro Vega 16 is an IGP with no recorded dimensions.

The bus interfaces also differ: the RX 6750 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Pro Vega 16 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs on the RX 6750 XT include 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro Vega 16's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its integrated nature. The RX 6750 XT was released on 2022-03-02 and has a launch MSRP of 549 USD. The Pro Vega 16 was released on 2018-11-13 with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life products.