AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 vs NVIDIA T600 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two direct comparisons between the NVIDIA T600 Mobile and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, and in both, the NVIDIA part comes out ahead. The most decisive margin is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the T600 Mobile scores 35,486 against the Radeon Pro Vega 20's 26,679. That is a 33% advantage, a substantial gap that places the two GPUs in different performance tiers despite both being mobile-class parts.

The second contest, Geekbench Vulkan, narrows the gap but still favors NVIDIA. The T600 Mobile records 30,211, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 trails at 26,410. The delta here is 14.4%, roughly half the OpenCL margin. This suggests the AMD part is relatively more competitive under Vulkan, though it still cannot overtake the NVIDIA solution in either recorded workload.

Across the two head-to-head tests, the T600 Mobile wins both, giving it a 2-0 record. The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this hierarchy. The T600 Mobile posts an average of 32,849, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 averages 27,839. That works out to roughly an 18% overall difference, placing the T600 Mobile in the 77th percentile of all GPUs tracked, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 sits in the 73rd percentile.

Nearest rival data from the database helps contextualize these scores. The T600 Mobile's closest neighbors include the NVIDIA P104-100 at 32,982 (0.4% faster), the NVIDIA T550 Mobile at 33,161 (0.9% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME at 32,601 (0.8% slower), and the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 at 32,540 (0.9% slower). It is a tightly clustered group, meaning the T600 Mobile is essentially at parity with several mid-range desktop and mobile parts from the previous generation.

For the Radeon Pro Vega 20, the nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 7800M at 27,883 (0.2% faster), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X at 27,973 (0.5% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28,020 (0.6% faster), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 at 27,565 (1% slower). Notably, the Radeon Pro Vega 20 sits just 1% ahead of the RTX 3090 in average score, an unusual pairing that highlights how far the Vega 20 has fallen relative to modern flagship parts.

The data indicates that the T600 Mobile is not merely faster in one synthetic test but maintains a consistent lead across both API paths. The OpenCL gap of 33% is the defining statistic: it shows that in compute-oriented workloads, the NVIDIA part delivers roughly a third more performance. The Vulkan gap, while smaller at 14.4%, still represents a clear win. No benchmark in the database shows the Radeon Pro Vega 20 ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile uses the TU117 chip, built on the Turing architecture, and is manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 uses the Vega 12 chip, based on GCN 5.0, and is produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference gives NVIDIA a manufacturing advantage: 12 nm versus 14 nm allows tighter transistor packing, though the exact density figures for the AMD chip are not recorded in the database.

The T600 Mobile integrates 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon Pro Vega 20's transistor count and die size are not listed, so a direct density comparison is not possible from the recorded data. However, the T600 Mobile's smaller process node suggests it achieves more transistors per area, which is consistent with its higher efficiency profile.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The T600 Mobile pairs 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 also has 4 GB, but uses HBM2 on a dramatically wider 1024-bit bus. Despite that width, its bandwidth is 189.4 GB/s, slightly lower than the NVIDIA part. This is because the AMD memory clock is much lower: 740 MHz with 1480 Mbps effective, compared to the T600 Mobile's 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective. The result is that NVIDIA achieves higher bandwidth with a far narrower bus, proof of the efficiency of GDDR6 at high clock speeds.

Compute unit configurations also differ. The T600 Mobile has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. On paper, AMD has 43% more shaders and 43% more TMUs, but the ROP count is identical at 32. This explains some of the performance characteristics: the AMD part has more raw ALU throughput potential, but its lower clocks and narrower effective memory bandwidth hold it back.

Clock speeds tell the rest of the story. The T600 Mobile runs at a base of 780 MHz and boosts to 1410 MHz. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 has a higher base clock of 815 MHz but a lower boost of 1283 MHz. In sustained workloads, the NVIDIA part can maintain a higher boost frequency, which contributes to its benchmark wins. The pixel rate is 45.12 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 41.06 GPixel/s for AMD, a small but meaningful gap. The texture rate favors AMD at 102.6 GTexel/s versus 78.96 GTexel/s, thanks to the extra TMUs, but the T600 Mobile still wins most compute tests anyway.

FP32 performance favors AMD on paper: 3.284 TFLOPS versus 2.32 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is 6.569 TFLOPS. However, the T600 Mobile's recorded FP32 is 2.527 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is actually lower in raw FP32. This is a notable inversion: AMD has more theoretical compute, yet loses in practice. The reason appears to be a combination of memory bandwidth, driver efficiency under OpenCL and Vulkan, and the specific workload characteristics of Geekbench. The T600 Mobile's FP16 figure is 5.053 TFLOPS, also lower than AMD's 6.569 TFLOPS, yet it still wins the benchmarks recorded.

Power consumption differs substantially. The T600 Mobile has a TDP of 40 W, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 draws 100 W. That is a 2.5x difference in power envelope. Both are listed as IGP slot width with portable device dependent display outputs, but the NVIDIA part achieves its benchmark results at less than half the power budget. This is a critical architectural distinction: the Turing design is significantly more power-efficient per unit of performance.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The T600 Mobile supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 supports Vulkan 1.3. The newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA part may contribute to its 14.4% lead in the Vulkan benchmark, though the performance gap is likely also architectural.

Where Each One Wins

The T600 Mobile wins both recorded benchmarks, so its dominance is clear in OpenCL and Vulkan compute workloads. The 33% OpenCL margin suggests that applications heavily reliant on general-purpose GPU compute will see a substantial benefit from the NVIDIA part. The 14.4% Vulkan margin indicates that graphics workloads using the Vulkan API also favor NVIDIA, though by a smaller margin.

The Radeon Pro Vega 20 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head data. However, its specification sheet suggests areas where it could theoretically excel. Its higher texture rate of 102.6 GTexel/s versus 78.96 GTexel/s means texture-heavy workloads might run faster if memory bandwidth were not a bottleneck. Its larger shader count of 1,280 versus 896 could benefit workloads that scale well with parallel ALU count, such as certain compute kernels. But the benchmark data does not confirm these advantages; in practice, the T600 Mobile outperforms it in the tests that were run.

The Radeon Pro Vega 20 also supports Metal, as indicated by its Geekbench Metal score of 30,427. The T600 Mobile has no recorded Metal benchmark, so direct comparison is impossible. For users in macOS environments, the AMD part may be the only option with native Metal support, though the database does not record a T600 Mobile Metal score to compare.

In terms of power efficiency, the T600 Mobile wins decisively. At 40 W versus 100 W, the NVIDIA part delivers higher benchmark scores while consuming 60 W less. For thin-and-light laptops or systems with constrained thermal budgets, this is a significant practical advantage.

The Radeon Pro Vega 20's HBM2 memory, while delivering slightly lower bandwidth than the T600 Mobile's GDDR6, offers a much wider 1024-bit bus. This could theoretically provide better performance in workloads with low memory-level parallelism, but the recorded bandwidth of 189.4 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s shows no practical benefit in the benchmarks tested.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile averages 32,849 across its recorded benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 averages 27,839.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: The T600 Mobile scores 35,486 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 33% higher than the Radeon Pro Vega 20's 26,679.

Q: Do the two GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The T600 Mobile supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 supports Vulkan 1.3. Only the AMD part has a recorded Metal benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The T600 Mobile has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 has 189.4 GB/s from HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The T600 Mobile has a TDP of 40 W, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 has a TDP of 100 W.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher in the overall database?

A: The T600 Mobile is in the 77th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 is in the 73rd percentile.

The Verdict

The data leads to an unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is the faster GPU in every recorded benchmark. It wins the OpenCL test by 33% and the Vulkan test by 14.4%, giving it a 2-0 head-to-head record. Its average benchmark score is roughly 18% higher, and it achieves this while consuming only 40 W compared to the Radeon Pro Vega 20's 100 W.

The T600 Mobile's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA P104-100 and T550 Mobile, both of which are within 1% of its average score. This places it in a competitive mid-range tier. The Radeon Pro Vega 20, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti and RTX 3090 in average score, a cluster that includes both older high-end parts and modern flagships with very different performance profiles.

Users should pick the NVIDIA T600 Mobile if they prioritize raw performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, power efficiency, or a smaller thermal footprint. The 33% OpenCL lead is particularly relevant for compute-heavy applications. The Radeon Pro Vega 20 may still be worth considering in ecosystems where Metal support is required, as it has a recorded Metal score of 30,427, but for general-purpose benchmarks, it trails substantially.

The Radeon Pro Vega 20's higher shader count and texture rate do not translate into benchmark wins. Its lower boost clock, slightly lower memory bandwidth, and much higher power draw appear to outweigh its architectural advantages. The database shows no scenario where the AMD part comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The T600 Mobile uses a TU117 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 uses a Vega 12 chip on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The T600 Mobile integrates 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die with a density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter; the Radeon Pro Vega 20 has no recorded transistor count, die size, or density.

Clock speeds differ: the T600 Mobile has a base of 780 MHz and a boost of 1410 MHz, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 has a base of 815 MHz and a boost of 1283 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the T600 Mobile at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) and the Radeon Pro Vega 20 at 740 MHz (1480 Mbps effective).

Memory configuration differs: both have 4 GB, but the T600 Mobile uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 uses HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 189.4 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units differ (896 versus 1,280), TMUs differ (56 versus 80), and ROPs are identical at 32.

Pixel rate is 45.12 GPixel/s for the T600 Mobile and 41.06 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro Vega 20. Texture rate is 78.96 GTexel/s versus 102.6 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.527 TFLOPS versus 3.284 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 5.053 TFLOPS versus 6.569 TFLOPS, with both listed as 2:1 ratios.

TDP differs significantly at 40 W versus 100 W. Both are IGP slot width with portable device dependent display outputs and PCIe 3.0 x16 interfaces. The T600 Mobile has no power connectors listed, while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 has no power connector data. Vulkan support differs: 1.4 for the T600 Mobile and 1.3 for the Radeon Pro Vega 20. Release dates differ, with the T600 Mobile launching later, and the T600 Mobile has recorded predecessors and successors (Quadro Pascal-M and Ampere-MW), while the Radeon Pro Vega 20 has none listed.