AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are both end-of-life professional graphics solutions built on the same Vega 10 silicon and GCN 5.0 architecture, yet benchmark results reveal a split personality depending on the API used. The Vega 56 wins two of three head-to-head tests with commanding margins, while the Vega 48 counters with a decisive victory in Apple's Metal API, making the choice between them heavily dependent on the software environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this comparison comes from the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 61,930 against the Vega 48's 53,757. That translates to a 15.2% advantage for the Vega 56, a substantial gap that reflects the raw compute resources allocated to the larger chip. The Vega 56 carries 3,584 shading units and 224 texture mapping units, compared to 3,072 and 192 respectively on the Vega 48, and those extra execution units show up directly in OpenCL workloads that scale with parallel throughput.

Vulkan tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin. The Vega 56 posts 66,004 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, while the Vega 48 manages 57,653. That is a 14.5% delta in favor of the Vega 56, again pointing to the additional shader and texture hardware as the primary differentiator. The Vega 56's peak FP32 throughput of 8.960 TFLOPS versus the Vega 48's 7.373 TFLOPS gives it roughly 21.5% more theoretical compute, and while real-world Vulkan performance does not perfectly track that ceiling, the benchmark results land in the same direction.

The picture flips entirely in Geekbench Metal, however. Here the Vega 48 takes the win with 69,010 points against the Vega 56's 63,145, an 8.5% margin in the other direction. This is a notable inversion: the smaller, lower-spec card outperforms the larger one in Apple's graphics API. The data suggests that Metal optimization favors the Vega 48's configuration, or that the Vega 56's extra compute units are not being fully utilized under this particular API. The Vega 48's average benchmark score of 60,140 trails the Vega 56's 63,693, but the Metal result alone is enough to shift the overall narrative.

Looking at the aggregate numbers, the Vega 56 holds a 5.9% lead in average benchmark score across all three tests. Its percentile ranking of 89 versus the Vega 48's 88 places both cards in the upper tier of all GPUs, but the Vega 56 sits slightly higher. In terms of nearest rivals, the Vega 56's average score of 63,693 puts it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 7600M and 0.2% of both the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP and NVIDIA CMP 30HX. The Vega 48's 60,140 average places it 0.3% behind the Intel Arc Pro A60 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, while running 2.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 and 2.8% ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100.

The Verdict

For compute-heavy OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 is the clear choice. Its 15.2% OpenCL advantage and 14.5% Vulkan advantage over the Vega 48 are decisive, and the extra shading units, TMUs, and FP32 throughput make it the more capable card for general-purpose GPU compute. Anyone running Linux or Windows environments where OpenCL and Vulkan are the primary APIs should select the Vega 56 without hesitation.

For macOS users working in Metal-accelerated applications, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is unexpectedly the stronger performer. Its 8.5% Metal score advantage over the Vega 56 means that creative professionals running Final Cut Pro, Blender's Metal backend, or other Metal-native software will see better results from the lower-spec card. This is a counterintuitive outcome that underscores how API-level optimization can override raw hardware specifications.

The data does not support a universal winner. The Vega 56 wins on aggregate benchmark average and holds the higher percentile ranking, but the Vega 48's Metal dominance makes it the better pick for Apple-centric workflows. Users should match the card to their software stack: OpenCL and Vulkan favor the Vega 56, Metal favors the Vega 48. The fact that both cards share the same die, memory configuration, and architecture means the decision comes down to driver and API behavior rather than fundamental hardware differences.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Vega 10 chip using GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die size is identical at 495 mm², and both pack 12,500 million transistors, yielding the same transistor density of 25.3M per square millimeter. Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both are designated as integrated graphics platform (IGP) solutions with no power connectors required.

The core configuration is where the two diverge. The Vega 56 deploys 3,584 shading units and 224 texture mapping units, while the Vega 48 scales down to 3,072 shading units and 192 TMUs. Both retain 64 raster operation pipelines, keeping pixel throughput identical at the ROP level. The clock speeds tell a partial story: the Vega 56 runs at 1138 MHz base and 1250 MHz boost, while the Vega 48's base and boost clocks are not listed in the available data. The memory clock is the same for both at 786 MHz, translating to 1572 Mbps effective.

The compute differences follow directly from the shader and texture counts. The Vega 56 delivers 8.960 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.92 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio), while the Vega 48 produces 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.75 TFLOPS FP16. Pixel rate is slightly higher on the Vega 56 at 80.00 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s, and texture rate shows a more pronounced gap at 280.0 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s.

Specification Differences

The two cards share identical memory subsystems: 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Display outputs differ, with the Vega 56 offering 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Vega 48's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The Vega 56 has a specified TDP of 210 W, while the Vega 48's TDP is not provided. Both are IGP form factors requiring no power connectors, and neither has a suggested PSU rating. The Vega 56 was released on 2017-08-13, while the Vega 48 arrived later on 2019-03-18. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP listed and no predecessor or successor documented. Neither card has dimensional specifications available.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 scores 61,930 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Vega 48's 53,757 by a 15.2% margin.

Q: Does the Vega 48 ever outperform the Vega 56?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Metal the Vega 48 scores 69,010 versus the Vega 56's 63,145, an 8.5% advantage for the Vega 48.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The Vega 56 averages 63,693 across all tests, while the Vega 48 averages 60,140, giving the Vega 56 a 5.9% lead.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both feature 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth and a 786 MHz memory clock.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units and 224 TMUs, while the Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units and 192 TMUs. Both have 64 ROPs.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The Vega 56 scores 66,004 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 57,653 for the Vega 48, a 14.5% advantage for the Vega 56.