AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48: a comparison between a modern RDNA 3 workstation GPU and a legacy GCN 5.0 part. The recorded data shows a clear generational shift, with the newer card winning every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, though the older Vega 48 retains specific strengths that matter in certain contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the dominant performer in the benchmark suite recorded in the database. It wins both shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the W7600 scores 81528 versus 53757 for the Pro Vega 48, a delta of 51.7%. In Vulkan, the gap widens further: 92688 versus 57653, a delta of 60.8%. This means for any workload that leverages these APIs, the W7600 is the faster card by a wide margin.

The Pro Vega 48 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, it is not without merit. Its nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 with an average score of 60347, which is only 0.3% higher than the Vega 48's average of 60140. That indicates that despite its age, the Pro Vega 48 still lands in the same performance neighborhood as some very modern GPUs in the database's aggregate scoring. It also holds an 88th percentile ranking versus all GPUs, while the W7600 sits at the 93rd percentile. The Pro Vega 48's strongest result is in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 69010, a test that the W7600 does not have a recorded result for.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87108, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has an average of 60160.

Q: How much faster is the W7600 in Vulkan?

A: The W7600 scores 92688 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 60.8% higher than the Pro Vega 48's score of 57653.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 48 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro Vega 48 has no RT cores listed in its specifications, while the W7600 has 32 RT cores.

Q: Which GPU has the larger memory bus?

A: The Pro Vega 48 has a 2048-bit HBM2 bus, while the W7600 has a 128-bit GDDR6 bus. The Pro Vega 48 also has higher memory bandwidth at 402.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s for the W7600.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The W7600 is listed as Active, while the Pro Vega 48 is End-of-life.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The W7600 has a pixel rate of 156.2 GPixel/s, which is more than double the Pro Vega 48's 76.80 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share only two recorded benchmark tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the W7600 is the clear winner.

Starting with OpenCL, the W7600 scores 81528. The Pro Vega 48 scores 53757. The delta is 51.7% in favor of the W7600. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the modern RDNA 3 architecture has a significant compute advantage in this API despite the Pro Vega 48 having more shading units (3072 vs 2048) and more TMUs (192 vs 128). The W7600's higher clock speeds and newer architecture clearly offset the raw unit count disadvantage.

In Vulkan, the result is even more decisive. The W7600 scores 92688, while the Pro Vega 48 scores 57653. The delta is 60.8%. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API, and the W7600's RDNA 3 architecture appears to scale much better in this environment. The Pro Vega 48's GCN 5.0 architecture, which predates Vulkan's widespread adoption, lags significantly.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The W7600's average is 87108, which places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The Pro Vega 48's average is 60140, placing it in the 88th percentile. The W7600's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A4500 with an average score of 91671 (a 5% lead for the A4500) and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91134 (4.4% lead). The Pro Vega 48's nearest rivals show it sitting close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090, with a 0.3% difference. This suggests that while the Pro Vega 48 is old, its aggregate score still lands in a competitive zone, but it cannot match the W7600 in the shared tests.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ substantially in process node, memory, and interface. The W7600 is built on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the Pro Vega 48 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2M / mm². The Pro Vega 48 has 12,500 million transistors on a 4950 mm² die, with a density of 25.3M / mm². The W7600 is more than twice as dense, which explains its power efficiency advantages.

Memory is a major differentiator. The W7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, yielding 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Vega 48 has significantly more bandwidth, but the W7600's memory clock is much higher at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) for the Pro Vega 48. The W7600 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro Vega 48 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores. The Pro Vega 48 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and no RT cores. The Pro Vega 48 has a higher raw shader count, but the W7600's architecture is much more efficient: it achieves 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 versus 7.373 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 48. The W7600's pixel rate is 156.2 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 312.3 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s.

The W7600 is a single-slot card with a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Pro Vega 48 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no dimensions listed. The W7600 has a length of 241 mm and a height of 115 mm. The Pro Vega 48's display outputs are portable device dependent, while the W7600 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The W7600 is based on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi series, which is a dedicated discrete graphics line. The Pro Vega 48 is based on the GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip and belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac series. The GCN 5.0 architecture is significantly older and lacks the hardware ray tracing that RDNA 3.0 includes. The W7600 has 32 RT cores, while the Pro Vega 48 has none.

The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with version 12_2, Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro Vega 48 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The W7600 also has a higher FP16 throughput of 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 14.75 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 48. Both GPUs have 8 GB of memory, but the W7600's GDDR6 is newer than the Pro Vega 48's HBM2. The Pro Vega 48 was released in March 2019, while the W7600 was released in August 2023. The W7600's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, which is the same family as the Pro Vega 48.

The W7600 also has a higher transistor density, 65.2M / mm², versus 25.3M / mm² for the Pro Vega 48. This density difference reflects the generational jump in process technology. The W7600's boost clock is 2440 MHz, while the Pro Vega 48 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The W7600's memory clock is much higher, and its bus interface is newer (PCIe 4.0 vs 3.0).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the faster GPU in every shared benchmark. In OpenCL, it leads by 51.7%; in Vulkan, it leads by 60.8%. Its average benchmark score of 87108 is significantly higher than the Pro Vega 48's 60140. It also offers modern features like ray tracing, a higher process node, and support for DisplayPort 2.1, which the Pro Vega 48 lacks.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48, however, is not a card to dismiss out of hand. It has a higher memory bandwidth (402.4 GB/s vs 288.8 GB/s) and more shading units. Its aggregate score of 60140 places it in the 88th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. It also has a 2048-bit bus, which is much wider than the W7600's 128-bit bus. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth-bound and that use the Metal API, the Pro Vega 48 might hold an advantage, as its Metal score of 69017 is higher than its OpenCL score.

The verdict depends on the use case. For modern Pro workloads using Vulkan or OpenCL, ray tracing, or competitive performance, the W7600 is the clear choice. For legacy integrated systems, particularly Apple Mac environments that use Metal and are still on PCIe 3.0, the Pro Vega 48 remains a viable option with its higher bandwidth and wide bus, but the performance gap in shared tests is too large to recommend it for new builds. The W7600 is the better GPU in these recorded benchmarks, and its active production status means it will continue to receive driver support. The Pro Vega 48 is end-of-life, which the database shows with a lower percentile and lower average score.