AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are both members of the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation, built on the same Vega 10 silicon and GCN 5.0 architecture. Despite sharing a foundational design, the data reveals a significant performance gulf between them, with the Vega 64 winning all three head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Vega 64 holds a 91st percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the Vega 48 sits at the 88th percentile, a gap that underscores their differing positions in the product stack.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 71,094 against the Vega 48’s 53,757. This represents a delta of 32.3% in favor of the Vega 64, the largest margin of any test. The OpenCL workload appears to scale heavily with the Vega 64’s additional compute resources, making this the clearest differentiator between the two cards. In practical terms, this suggests that any application leveraging OpenCL for general-purpose compute will see a substantial advantage on the Vega 64.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly reduced margin. The Vega 64 posts 74,174, while the Vega 48 manages 57,653, a difference of 28.7%. This is the Vega 64’s highest raw score across all three benchmarks, indicating that its architecture is particularly well-suited to Vulkan’s explicit, low-overhead API model. The Vega 48’s Vulkan score is also its second-best result, but the gap between the two cards remains pronounced, reinforcing the idea that the Vega 64’s superior hardware configuration translates directly into API-level performance gains.

The closest contest comes in Geekbench Metal, where the Vega 64 scores 71,868 and the Vega 48 scores 69,010. The delta here is just 4.1%, a much narrower margin than the other two tests. Metal is Apple’s native graphics API, and both cards are designed for Mac systems, so it is unsurprising that they perform more similarly in this environment. Still, the Vega 64 maintains its lead, and its Metal score is actually its second-highest of the three tests, suggesting that it is a well-balanced card across different workloads.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Vega 64 achieves 72,379, while the Vega 48 trails at 60,140. The Vega 64’s closest rival in the overall database is the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition, which scores 73,370 and sits 1.4% ahead. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is nearly tied with the Vega 64 at 72,098, just 0.4% behind. On the other side, the Vega 48’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60,326, which is 0.3% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 at 60,347, also 0.3% ahead. These comparisons place the Vega 64 in the company of high-end desktop cards, while the Vega 48 aligns more closely with mid-range workstation and mobile options.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins every benchmark category, but the magnitude of its victories varies significantly by workload. Its largest win comes in OpenCL, where the 32.3% advantage makes it the definitive choice for compute-heavy tasks such as scientific simulations, data processing, or any workload that leverages the OpenCL framework. The Vulkan win of 28.7% is nearly as large, making the Vega 64 the stronger option for modern game engines and cross-platform graphics applications that use this API. Even in Metal, where the gap narrows to 4.1%, the Vega 64 still comes out ahead, so it is the better pick for macOS graphics performance across the board.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, while losing all three head-to-head tests, still has a clear role in the product lineup. Its Metal score of 69,010 is relatively close to the Vega 64’s 71,868, meaning that for users whose primary workload is Metal-based rendering or graphics on a Mac, the performance difference is modest. The Vega 48’s OpenCL score of 53,757 and Vulkan score of 57,653 are lower, but they remain within the range of its nearest rivals, such as the Intel Arc Pro A60 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, both of which are within 0.3% of its average score. This suggests that the Vega 48 is not a weak card in absolute terms, but rather that it is positioned for scenarios where the full compute power of the Vega 64 is not required.

In terms of application fit, the Vega 64 is the clear winner for any task that pushes the GPU to its limits, particularly in OpenCL and Vulkan environments. The Vega 48, by contrast, may be sufficient for lighter graphics workloads or for users who prioritize the form factor and power characteristics of a smaller card, though the data does not specify those exact attributes. The 88th percentile ranking for the Vega 48 indicates that it still outperforms the vast majority of GPUs, so it is far from a low-end part.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are built on the same Vega 10 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share identical transistor counts of 12,500 million and the same die size of 495 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The architecture is GCN 5.0, and both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so there is no difference in API compatibility.

The primary architectural difference lies in the compute unit configuration. The Vega 64 features 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operation units (ROPs). The Vega 48, in contrast, has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs. This reduction in shading units and TMUs is the root cause of the performance gap, as the Vega 64 has 33.3% more shading units and 33.3% more TMUs than the Vega 48, though the ROP count remains identical.

Clock speeds also differ, though the Vega 48’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The Vega 64 runs at a base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost clock of 1350 MHz. Memory clocks are identical between the two cards, with both running at 786 MHz and an effective data rate of 1572 Mbps. The memory subsystem is identical in bus width and bandwidth, with both cards using a 2048-bit HBM2 interface and achieving 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. However, the memory capacity differs: the Vega 64 has 16 GB, while the Vega 48 has 8 GB. This doubling of VRAM on the Vega 64 is a significant factor for large datasets or high-resolution textures.

The memory configuration leads to different pixel and texture rates. The Vega 64 achieves a pixel rate of 86.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 345.6 GTexel/s, while the Vega 48 achieves 76.80 GPixel/s and 230.4 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute performance is 11.06 TFLOPS for the Vega 64 and 7.373 TFLOPS for the Vega 48, and FP16 performance is 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Vega 64 versus 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) for the Vega 48. Both cards are listed as integrated graphics platforms (IGP) with no power connectors, and their display outputs are described as portable device dependent, indicating they are intended for laptop or all-in-one systems.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has an average benchmark score of 72,379, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 60,140, a difference of roughly 20% in favor of the Vega 64.

Q: How much faster is the Vega 64 in OpenCL?

A: The Vega 64 scores 71,094 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the Vega 48’s 53,757, representing a 32.3% advantage for the Vega 64.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both cards feature a 2048-bit HBM2 interface with 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 786 MHz, but the Vega 64 has 16 GB of memory while the Vega 48 has 8 GB.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Vega 64 in terms of average score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is the closest rival, with an average score of 72,098, just 0.4% behind the Vega 64’s 72,379.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Vega 48 wins?

A: No, the head-to-head data shows the Vega 64 winning all three tests: Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two cards?

A: The Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, while the Vega 48 has 3072 shading units, giving the Vega 64 a 33.3% higher count.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 in every measurable benchmark category. Its wins in Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, with deltas of 4.1%, 32.3%, and 28.7% respectively, make it the superior choice for any user seeking maximum performance from a Vega 10-based Mac GPU. The Vega 64’s 91st percentile ranking and its closeness to the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (1.4% behind) and NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (0.4% ahead) position it as a high-end part that competes with top-tier desktop GPUs.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, while losing all head-to-head tests, is still a respectable card at the 88th percentile. Its performance is nearly identical to the Intel Arc Pro A60 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, both within 0.3% of its average score. For users who primarily work in Metal, the Vega 48’s 69,010 score is only 4.1% behind the Vega 64, making it a viable alternative for lighter workloads. However, in OpenCL and Vulkan, the Vega 48 falls significantly behind, making it a poor choice for compute-intensive applications.

From a specification standpoint, the Vega 64 offers double the memory (16 GB vs 8 GB), a higher shading unit count (4096 vs 3072), and higher clock speeds (1250 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost, where the Vega 48’s clocks are unspecified). The Vega 64 also delivers higher pixel and texture rates, as well as higher FP32 and FP16 throughput. The Vega 48’s only structural advantages are not listed in the data, though its lower compute configuration may translate to lower power consumption, which is not specified here. Ultimately, the Vega 64 is the clear pick for performance, while the Vega 48 is a more modest option that still holds its own against its nearest rivals.

Specification Differences

• Memory Size: The Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2, while the Vega 48 has 8 GB.
• Shading Units: The Vega 64 has 4096, while the Vega 48 has 3072.
• TMUs: The Vega 64 has 256, while the Vega 48 has 192.
• Base Clock: The Vega 64 is 1250 MHz; the Vega 48’s base clock is not listed.
• Boost Clock: The Vega 64 is 1350 MHz; the Vega 48’s boost clock is not listed.
• Pixel Rate: The Vega 64 achieves 86.40 GPixel/s, while the Vega 48 achieves 76.80 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The Vega 64 achieves 345.6 GTexel/s, while the Vega 48 achieves 230.4 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The Vega 64 is 11.06 TFLOPS, while the Vega 48 is 7.373 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The Vega 64 is 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1), while the Vega 48 is 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: The Vega 64 is rated at 250 W; the Vega 48’s TDP is not listed.
• Release Date: The Vega 64 was released on 2017-06-26, while the Vega 48 was released on 2019-03-18.