AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two AMD mobile graphics solutions. In the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD Radeon RX 7900M wins both, with no victories recorded for the Radeon Pro Vega 48.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7900M scores 129,499 against the Pro Vega 48's 53,757, a delta of 140.9%. That is more than double the compute throughput in a general-purpose workload, suggesting the newer architecture's raw shader count and memory subsystem deliver a massive advantage in parallel compute tasks.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RX 7900M posts 158,760 points, while the Pro Vega 48 manages 57,653, a 175.4% delta. This nearly triples the older GPU's score in a modern graphics API, indicating that the RX 7900M handles draw calls, geometry, and async compute far more efficiently. For gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering under Vulkan, the data implies the RX 7900M is in a different performance class entirely.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The RX 7900M averages 97,487 across all recorded tests, while the Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140. That is a 62.1% higher average, placing the RX 7900M in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 88th percentile for the Pro Vega 48. Neither is a slouch, but the RX 7900M sits near the top of the entire GPU landscape, while the Pro Vega 48 sits comfortably above average.

Looking at nearest rivals contextualizes these numbers. The RX 7900M's average score of 97,487 is only 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131) and 4.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872). It is 5.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466) and 6.3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671). The Pro Vega 48, by contrast, sits in a much lower performance band: its 60,140 average is essentially tied with the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, a 0.3% deficit) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, also a 0.3% deficit). It is 2.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 (58,657) and 2.8% ahead of the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528). The comparison to the RTX 4090 is notable: the Pro Vega 48's average is virtually identical to a desktop flagship, but that flagship is being measured in a mobile context with different drivers and power limits.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by two full architecture generations and a complete redesign of the underlying compute paradigm.

The RX 7900M uses the Navi 31 chip on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename "Plum Bonito." It belongs to the Navi Mobile generation (RX 7000M series). The Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip on the GCN 5.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) generation. This is a fundamental shift from a unified shader design (GCN) to a chiplet-based, work-group processor design (RDNA).

The manufacturing process highlights the generational leap. The RX 7900M is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro Vega 48 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts reflect this: the RX 7900M packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The Pro Vega 48 has only 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, a density of 25.3M per mm². The RX 7900M crams over four times as many transistors into a similar die area, which directly enables its higher core counts and faster clocks.

Core configuration is dramatically different. The RX 7900M has 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 192 raster operation units, and 72 ray tracing cores. The Pro Vega 48 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. The RX 7900M also runs at significantly higher clocks: a base of 1,825 MHz and a boost of 2,090 MHz, versus the Pro Vega 48's unlisted base and boost clocks. The clock advantage alone, combined with the shader count, explains the 5.2x difference in FP32 throughput: 38.52 TFLOPS for the RX 7900M versus 7.373 TFLOPS for the Pro Vega 48. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1).

Memory is another major divergence. The RX 7900M uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The Pro Vega 48 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s at 786 MHz (1,572 Mbps effective). The RX 7900M has more capacity and higher bandwidth, despite a much narrower bus. The Pro Vega 48's HBM2 offers excellent bandwidth per watt, but the older memory technology cannot match the newer GDDR6's raw throughput.

Pixel and texture rates follow the core counts. The RX 7900M outputs 401.3 GPixel/s and 601.9 GTexel/s, while the Pro Vega 48 manages 76.80 GPixel/s and 230.4 GTexel/s. The Pro Vega 48's texture rate is actually higher relative to its pixel rate, indicating a different balance of work per clock, but the RX 7900M's absolute numbers are far superior.

API support differs as well. The RX 7900M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 48 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 7900M's newer API feature set enables mesh shaders, variable rate shading, and other modern rendering techniques that the Pro Vega 48 cannot access.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the RX 7900M wins every head-to-head test. There are no recorded wins for the Pro Vega 48. This means the use-case split is not about performance parity but about what each GPU is suited for in its remaining lifespan.

The RX 7900M is the clear choice for any workload that leverages modern APIs or raw compute. Its Vulkan score of 158,760 suggests it excels in gaming, real-time ray tracing (given its 72 RT cores), and Vulkan-based rendering pipelines. Its OpenCL score of 129,499 indicates strong general compute performance for tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, or machine learning inference. The 140.9% lead in OpenCL and 175.4% lead in Vulkan mean that any application using these APIs will see a massive speedup on the RX 7900M.

The Pro Vega 48, despite losing every comparison, still has a niche. Its 88th percentile ranking means it outperforms the vast majority of GPUs in the database. It has no ray tracing cores, but its GCN architecture is well-established, and its HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus provides 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is respectable for its era. For older DirectX 12 (12_1) workloads, OpenCL compute, or Vulkan 1.3 applications that were written before RDNA 3, the Pro Vega 48 remains functional. Its average benchmark score of 60,140 is nearly identical to the RTX 4090's 60,347 in the database, which suggests that in the specific tests used, the Pro Vega 48 is not a weak performer relative to that particular desktop flagship. However, that comparison is an artifact of the benchmark suite and driver scenarios, not a general statement of capability.

The data implies that the Pro Vega 48 is best suited for legacy compute tasks, basic rendering, or as a secondary GPU in a system where its 8 GB of HBM2 and relatively low power footprint (no TDP listed, but the IGP slot width and no power connectors suggest a mobile integration) are sufficient. The RX 7900M, with its 180 W TDP and active production status, is the only rational choice for new workloads that demand maximum performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900M averages 97,487 points across all recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140 points. The RX 7900M is 62.1% higher.

Q: How much faster is the RX 7900M in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 7900M scores 158,760 versus the Pro Vega 48's 57,653, a delta of 175.4% in favor of the RX 7900M.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 48 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro Vega 48 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The RX 7900M has 72 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The RX 7900M has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The RX 7900M delivers 38.52 TFLOPS of FP32, while the Pro Vega 48 delivers 7.373 TFLOPS. The RX 7900M is approximately 5.2 times faster.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RX 7900M is listed as "Active" in production, released on October 18, 2023. The Pro Vega 48 is "End-of-life," released on March 18, 2019.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (RX 7900M) versus GCN 5.0 (Pro Vega 48)
• Process node: 5 nm TSMC versus 14 nm GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 57,700 million versus 12,500 million
• Die size: 529 mm² versus 495 mm²
• Transistor density: 109.1M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1,825 MHz versus not listed
• Boost clock: 2,090 MHz versus not listed
• Memory clock: 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 786 MHz (1,572 Mbps effective)
• Memory size: 16 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM2
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 2048 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 4,608 versus 3,072
• TMUs: 288 versus 192
• ROPs: 192 versus 64
• Ray tracing cores: 72 versus none
• Pixel rate: 401.3 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 601.9 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 38.52 TFLOPS versus 7.373 TFLOPS
• FP16: 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 180 W versus not listed
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Release date: October 18, 2023 versus March 18, 2019
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice. For any user who needs maximum performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the AMD Radeon RX 7900M is the only viable option. Its 140.9% lead in OpenCL and 175.4% lead in Vulkan represent a generational leap that cannot be overcome by driver optimizations or workload tuning on the Pro Vega 48. The RX 7900M also offers more memory (16 GB versus 8 GB), higher bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s), and ray tracing support, which the Pro Vega 48 entirely lacks.

The Pro Vega 48's only advantages are its lower transistor count (12,500 million versus 57,700 million) and its 2048-bit memory bus, which is wider but ultimately slower due to older HBM2 technology. Its 88th percentile ranking shows it is not a weak GPU, but it is outclassed in every measured metric by the RX 7900M.

For new purchases, the RX 7900M is the obvious pick. Its active production status and 2023 release date mean it will receive ongoing driver support and is designed for modern APIs. The Pro Vega 48, being end-of-life since 2019, is only relevant for legacy systems or specific compatibility requirements. The database's recorded wins are 2 for the RX 7900M and 0 for the Pro Vega 48. That is the definitive summary.