AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two AMD mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M takes the overall win count, 2 wins to 1, but the margins and the specific tests tell a more nuanced story.

Starting with Geekbench Metal, the RX 5600M posts a score of 76653 against the Pro Vega 48's 69010. That is a 10% advantage for the RX 5600M, and it is the largest margin of victory in either direction. This test often reflects compute and graphics throughput in Apple-centric workloads, and the RX 5600M shows a solid lead here.

The OpenCL result follows a similar pattern. The RX 5600M scores 59589, while the Pro Vega 48 scores 53757. The delta is 9.8% in favor of the RX 5600M. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute standard, and the RX 5600M's newer architecture appears to handle it more efficiently. This is the second consecutive win for the RX 5600M, and it establishes a consistent theme in general-purpose compute performance.

The one bright spot for the Pro Vega 48 is Geekbench Vulkan. Here, the Pro Vega 48 scores 57653 against the RX 5600M's 48843. That is an 18% lead for the Pro Vega 48, and it is the single biggest performance gap recorded in the head-to-head data. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics and compute API, and the Pro Vega 48's GCN architecture, despite being older, clearly has strengths in this specific workload. This result prevents a clean sweep and shows that the Pro Vega 48 is not obsolete in every scenario.

Looking at the broader database context, the Pro Vega 48 sits at the 88th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 60140. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60326 (0.3% faster), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 at 60347 (0.3% faster), the AMD Radeon PRO V710 at 58657 (2.5% slower), and the NVIDIA P102-100 at 58528 (2.8% slower). The Pro Vega 48 is essentially trading blows with an RTX 4090 in this aggregate metric, which is remarkable given the different market positions. The RX 5600M, on the other hand, sits at the 85th percentile with an average score of 46601. Its rivals are the Intel Arc A530M at 46614 (a 0% delta, effectively identical), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46702 (0.2% faster), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46043 (1.2% slower), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45972 (1.4% slower). The RX 5600M is firmly in the mid-range tier, while the Pro Vega 48 is operating in a much higher performance class according to the aggregate data.

This is the key tension in the comparison: the Pro Vega 48 has a much higher average benchmark score across the database, but in the specific head-to-head tests where both were measured under identical conditions, the RX 5600M wins two out of three. The averages include different test suites, so the direct comparisons are the more reliable indicator of relative performance in these particular workloads.

The Verdict

The data suggests a straightforward choice for most users. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M should be the pick for anyone prioritizing general compute performance, Metal workloads, or OpenCL tasks. It wins the two most common cross-platform compute tests by roughly 10% each. The architecture is newer, and the benchmark results reflect that advantage in these specific APIs.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is the pick only if Vulkan performance is the primary concern. Its 18% lead in that single test is substantial, and it cannot be ignored. Anyone running Vulkan-based applications, which includes many modern games and some professional 3D tools, will find the Pro Vega 48 meaningfully faster.

For mixed workloads, the RX 5600M is the safer recommendation. Two out of three wins, with the losing test still showing only an 18% deficit, makes it the more balanced option. The Pro Vega 48's Vulkan strength is real, but it is a narrower advantage than the RX 5600M's consistent lead across two separate APIs. The average benchmark score also favors the Pro Vega 48 overall, but the direct head-to-head tests are the more relevant data points when choosing between these two specific cards.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations entirely. The Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 7 nm. The RX 5600M's smaller process node allows for higher transistor density, 41.0M per mm² compared to the Pro Vega 48's 25.3M per mm².

The transistor counts tell a related story. The Pro Vega 48 packs 12,500 million transistors on a die size of 495 mm². The RX 5600M has fewer transistors overall, 10,300 million, but on a much smaller die of 251 mm². The RX 5600M crams more transistors into half the area, which is the direct benefit of the newer 7 nm process.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Pro Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The Pro Vega 48 has both more memory and significantly higher bandwidth, roughly 40% more. This is a substantial advantage in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the head-to-head benchmarks do not show it translating into wins in the tested APIs.

The compute configurations also differ. The Pro Vega 48 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro Vega 48 has more of everything except ROPs, where they tie. Pixel rate slightly favors the RX 5600M at 80.96 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s, but texture rate favors the Pro Vega 48 at 230.4 GTexel/s versus 182.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.373 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 48 and 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M. FP16 is 14.75 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 48 and 11.66 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds are a clear differentiator. The RX 5600M has defined clocks: 1035 MHz base, 1190 MHz game, and 1265 MHz boost. The Pro Vega 48 lists no base, boost, or game clock in the database. Memory clocks also differ: the Pro Vega 48 runs at 786 MHz with 1572 Mbps effective, while the RX 5600M runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and type differ as noted: 8 GB HBM2 versus 6 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 2048-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth is 402.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. The Pro Vega 48 has 3072 shading units versus 2304, 192 TMUs versus 144, and a tie at 64 ROPs.

Power draw is listed for the RX 5600M at 150 W, while the Pro Vega 48 has no TDP listed. Both are integrated into a portable device, listed as IGP slot width, with no power connectors. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro Vega 48, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 5600M.

API support shows a minor difference. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The Pro Vega 48 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the RX 5600M supports Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are about 15 months apart: the Pro Vega 48 launched on 2019-03-18, the RX 5600M on 2020-07-06. Both are end-of-life production status. The RX 5600M lists a predecessor, Polaris Mobile, while the Pro Vega 48 lists none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins 2 out of 3 direct comparisons, taking Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 wins Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: How large is the Vulkan advantage for the Pro Vega 48?

A: The Pro Vega 48 scores 57653 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the RX 5600M's 48843, an 18% lead. This is the largest margin in any head-to-head test between the two.

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

A: The Pro Vega 48 has an average benchmark score of 60140, while the RX 5600M has 46601. The Pro Vega 48 sits at the 88th percentile, the RX 5600M at the 85th.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The Pro Vega 48 has 7.373 TFLOPS FP32, while the RX 5600M has 5.829 TFLOPS. The Pro Vega 48 also leads in FP16 at 14.75 TFLOPS versus 11.66 TFLOPS.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life production status in the database. The Pro Vega 48 was released on 2019-03-18, the RX 5600M on 2020-07-06.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins in general compute workloads. Its Metal and OpenCL results are both approximately 10% ahead of the Pro Vega 48. Any application that leverages these APIs, which includes most macOS graphics and compute tasks, plus a wide range of cross-platform scientific and rendering workloads, will run better on the RX 5600M. The newer RDNA 1.0 architecture and 7 nm process appear to provide a real efficiency and throughput advantage in these tests.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 wins in Vulkan-specific workloads. The 18% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is decisive, and it indicates that GCN 5.0 has strong low-level driver performance in this API. Vulkan is used in many modern game engines and professional visualization tools, so this is not a niche concern. Anyone whose primary applications are Vulkan-based should strongly consider the Pro Vega 48 despite its losses elsewhere.

The Pro Vega 48 also holds theoretical advantages in raw specifications. It has more memory (8 GB versus 6 GB), much higher bandwidth (402.4 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s), more shading units (3072 versus 2304), and higher FP32 compute (7.373 TFLOPS versus 5.829 TFLOPS). These do not translate into wins in the head-to-head tests, but they suggest the Pro Vega 48 may perform better in workloads not covered by the three benchmark tests, particularly those sensitive to memory bandwidth or raw shader throughput.

The RX 5600M wins on efficiency metrics. It has a lower TDP at 150 W, a smaller die at 251 mm², and a newer process node. The higher transistor density of 41.0M per mm² indicates a more modern design. For a laptop or portable device, the RX 5600M is likely the more sensible choice given its lower power draw and smaller physical footprint.

The practical guidance is clear. For a general-purpose mobile workstation GPU, the RX 5600M is the better performer in the most common compute APIs. For a Vulkan-centric workload or a task that can exploit the Pro Vega 48's larger memory pool and bandwidth, the Pro Vega 48 has a compelling case. The database shows a 2-to-1 win split, and the margins align with that verdict.