AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 vs AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT are two very different GPUs from AMD, separated by architecture, process node, and intended use. The data shows the RX 6750 XT wins two of three head-to-head benchmarks, but the Pro Vega 20 takes a decisive victory in one specific workload. This comparison is not a simple generational sweep; it is a study in how architecture and memory design influence benchmark outcomes.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT is the clear performance leader in overall terms. Its average benchmark score of 26011 sits at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 averages 27839, placing it at the 73rd percentile. However, the head-to-head results tell a more nuanced story. The RX 6750 XT wins Geekbench Metal with a score of 137249 against 30427, a delta of -77.8% for the older card, and wins Geekbench Vulkan with 98089 against 26410, a delta of -73.1%. These are enormous margins, indicating the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture is vastly superior in both Metal and Vulkan APIs.

Yet, the Pro Vega 20 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 26679 against the RX 6750 XT’s 16360, a 63.1% advantage. This single win suggests that for OpenCL compute workloads, the older GCN 5.0 architecture retains a significant edge. Therefore, the verdict is: the RX 6750 XT is the default choice for most modern gaming and general graphics workloads, given its staggering lead in Metal and Vulkan. The Pro Vega 20 is the specialist’s pick for OpenCL compute tasks, where its 63.1% advantage makes it the unequivocal winner.

The percentile data adds context. The Pro Vega 20’s 73rd percentile is higher than the RX 6750 XT’s 71st, despite the latter’s head-to-head wins. This discrepancy arises because the Pro Vega 20’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 with an average score of 27565 and a deltaPct of 1, meaning the Pro Vega 20 is just 1% ahead of an RTX 3090. The RX 6750 XT’s rivals are weaker, with the closest being the AMD Radeon R9 M395X at 25891 and a deltaPct of 0.5. Thus, the Pro Vega 20 punches above its weight in the global database, while the RX 6750 XT competes in a lower tier despite its higher raw scores in specific tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Pro Vega 20 uses the Vega 12 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the RX 6750 XT uses the Navi 22 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. This node shrink is fundamental, allowing the RX 6750 XT to pack 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, with a transistor density of 51.3M per mm². The Pro Vega 20’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data, but the process difference implies a massive efficiency gap.

The RX 6750 XT also introduces hardware features absent from the Pro Vega 20. It has 40 ray tracing cores, while the Pro Vega 20 lists none. This is a generational leap, as RDNA 2.0 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Pro Vega 20 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The RX 6750 XT also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 20 is limited to Vulkan 1.3. These API differences directly explain the Vulkan benchmark disparity, where the RX 6750 XT scores 98089 versus 26410.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Pro Vega 20 uses 4 GB of HBM2 with a 1024-bit bus, yielding 189.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6750 XT uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. Despite having a narrower bus, the RX 6750 XT achieves more than double the bandwidth. This is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads, and it underscores why the RX 6750 XT dominates in Metal and Vulkan, which often stress memory throughput.

The RX 6750 XT also has double the shading units (2560 vs 1280), double the TMUs (160 vs 80), and double the ROPs (64 vs 32). Its pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 416.0 GTexel/s dwarf the Pro Vega 20’s 41.06 GPixel/s and 102.6 GTexel/s. FP32 performance tells the same story: 13.31 TFLOPS for the RX 6750 XT versus 3.284 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 20. These are not incremental improvements; they are order-of-magnitude shifts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only three tests, but they are revealing. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6750 XT scores 137249, while the Pro Vega 20 manages 30427. The deltaPct of -77.8% means the Pro Vega 20 is 77.8% slower, a crushing defeat. This test likely leverages the RX 6750 XT’s higher shader count, faster clocks (boost of 2600 MHz vs 1283 MHz), and superior memory bandwidth. The Pro Vega 20’s HBM2 memory, while wide, cannot compensate for its lower compute throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6750 XT again wins with 98089 against 26410, a deltaPct of -73.1%. Vulkan is a low-level API that benefits from modern hardware features. The RX 6750 XT’s support for Vulkan 1.4, combined with its RDNA 2.0 architecture, gives it a massive advantage. The Pro Vega 20’s older GCN 5.0 design, capped at Vulkan 1.3, is simply outclassed here.

The sole Pro Vega 20 victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 26679 versus the RX 6750 XT’s 16360. The deltaPct of 63.1% indicates the Pro Vega 20 is 63.1% faster. This is a striking result. OpenCL is a compute-oriented API, and the GCN architecture has historically been strong in compute tasks. The Pro Vega 20’s HBM2 memory, with its 1024-bit bus, may also contribute to lower latency in certain compute patterns. The RX 6750 XT’s GDDR6 memory, while faster in bandwidth, may not handle OpenCL’s specific access patterns as efficiently.

The win count is 1 for the Pro Vega 20 and 2 for the RX 6750 XT, but the magnitude of the RX 6750 XT’s wins dwarfs the Pro Vega 20’s single victory. The average benchmark scores reflect this imbalance: 27839 for the Pro Vega 20 against 26011 for the RX 6750 XT. Yet, the head-to-head shows that averages can be misleading, as the OpenCL result flips the narrative for compute users.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 14 nm for the Pro Vega 20 versus 7 nm for the RX 6750 XT. The RX 6750 XT has a transistor count of 17,200 million and a die size of 335 mm², while the Pro Vega 20’s are absent from the data. Base clocks are 815 MHz for the Pro Vega 20 and 2150 MHz for the RX 6750 XT. Boost clocks are 1283 MHz versus 2600 MHz. The RX 6750 XT also lists a game clock of 2495 MHz, which the Pro Vega 20 lacks.

Memory is a key differentiator: 4 GB HBM2 versus 12 GB GDDR6. Bus widths are 1024-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth is 189.4 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1280 versus 2560. TMUs are 80 versus 160. ROPs are 32 versus 64. The RX 6750 XT has 40 ray tracing cores; the Pro Vega 20 has none. Pixel rates are 41.06 GPixel/s versus 166.4 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 102.6 GTexel/s versus 416.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.284 TFLOPS versus 13.31 TFLOPS. FP16 is 6.569 TFLOPS versus 26.62 TFLOPS (both at 2:1 ratio).

TDP is 100 W for the Pro Vega 20 versus 250 W for the RX 6750 XT, reflecting the latter’s higher performance envelope. The Pro Vega 20 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with slot width "IGP," while the RX 6750 XT is a dual-slot card. Power connectors are absent for the Pro Vega 20, but the RX 6750 XT requires 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro Vega 20 and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 6750 XT. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the Pro Vega 20, while the RX 6750 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6750 XT’s dimensions are 267 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width. The Pro Vega 20’s dimensions are null. The release dates are 2018-11-13 for the Pro Vega 20 and 2022-03-02 for the RX 6750 XT.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 has an average benchmark score of 27839, which is higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT’s average of 26011.

Q: Why does the RX 6750 XT win Geekbench Metal by such a large margin?

A: The RX 6750 XT scores 137249 in Geekbench Metal versus 30427 for the Pro Vega 20, a deltaPct of -77.8%. This is due to its RDNA 2.0 architecture, 2560 shading units, higher boost clock of 2600 MHz, and 432.0 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: Is the Pro Vega 20 better in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Pro Vega 20 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 26679, which is 63.1% higher than the RX 6750 XT’s 16360.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: The Pro Vega 20 has 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus with 189.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RX 6750 XT support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 6750 XT has 40 ray tracing cores, while the Pro Vega 20 has none listed.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6750 XT has a boost clock of 2600 MHz, while the Pro Vega 20 has a boost clock of 1283 MHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Pro Vega 20 has a TDP of 100 W, while the RX 6750 XT has a TDP of 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6750 XT wins in Metal and Vulkan benchmarks, with scores of 137249 and 98089 respectively, versus 30427 and 26410 for the Pro Vega 20. This makes it the clear choice for gaming, modern graphics APIs, and any workload that leverages DirectX 12 Ultimate or Vulkan 1.4. Its 12 GB of memory and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth also make it better suited for high-resolution textures and large datasets. The 40 ray tracing cores provide a hardware feature that the Pro Vega 20 simply cannot match. For users running Windows or Linux with Vulkan support, the RX 6750 XT is the superior performer.

The Pro Vega 20 wins in OpenCL, with a score of 26679 versus 16360 for the RX 6750 XT. This 63.1% advantage indicates that GCN 5.0’s compute architecture is still potent for OpenCL-based applications. Its 100 W TDP also makes it far more power-efficient, which is critical for integrated or mobile form factors. The "IGP" slot width and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs suggest it is designed for laptops or all-in-one systems, where power and space are constrained. For users running OpenCL compute workloads on such devices, the Pro Vega 20 is the better option.

The data also shows the Pro Vega 20 holds a higher percentile ranking at 73 versus 71 for the RX 6750 XT. This is likely because its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090, against which it is only 1% behind. The RX 6750 XT’s rivals are lower-tier cards, so its 71st percentile is less impressive in context. This suggests that in a mixed workload database, the Pro Vega 20 is more competitive relative to other GPUs, even though the RX 6750 XT dominates in the head-to-head tests. The RX 6750 XT’s launch MSRP is 549 USD, though the Pro Vega 20 has no listed launch MSRP. Ultimately, the RX 6750 XT wins for graphics-heavy tasks, while the Pro Vega 20 wins for OpenCL compute efficiency.