AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition Comparison

The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 are two professional cards built on the same silicon foundation, yet the recorded data shows a clear and consistent performance gap between them. Both derive from the Vega 10 GPU on GCN 5.0, but the Frontier Edition fields a larger configuration and posts wins across every benchmark in the database, with margins ranging from modest to commanding. The Pro Vega 48, an integrated Mac-oriented part with no benchmark victories here, still lands in the 88th percentile of all GPUs, which speaks to the underlying strength of the shared Vega 10 design. What follows is a detailed breakdown of where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is one-sided: the Vega Frontier Edition takes all three recorded tests, and the Pro Vega 48 takes none. The margin, however, varies considerably by API.

The closest contest is Geekbench Metal, where the Frontier Edition scores 72061 against the Pro Vega 48's 69010, a 4.4 percent advantage. This suggests that in Apple's Metal ecosystem, where the Pro Vega 48 spent much of its life, the smaller configuration holds up reasonably well. The gap is real but narrow, and for Metal-native workloads the two cards behave more like siblings than distinct tiers.

OpenCL tells a very different story. The Frontier Edition scores 76111 in geekbench_opencl while the Pro Vega 48 manages 53757, a 41.6 percent lead for the Frontier Edition. That is not a nuance, it is a rout, and it aligns with the raw specification differences: the Frontier Edition carries 4096 shading units and 13.11 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput against the Pro Vega 48's 3072 shading units and 7.373 TFLOPS. OpenCL compute workloads expose that gap directly.

Vulkan lands between the two extremes. The Frontier Edition posts 71937 in geekbench_vulkan versus 57653 for the Pro Vega 48, a 24.8 percent advantage. Vulkan, like OpenCL, rewards the Frontier Edition's fuller resource count, including its 256 texture units and 409.6 GTexel/s texture rate, compared with 192 TMUs and 230.4 GTexel/s on the Pro Vega 48.

Aggregating the three tests gives average scores of 73370 for the Frontier Edition and 60140 for the Pro Vega 48. In percentile terms, the Frontier Edition sits at the 91st percentile of all GPUs in the database while the Pro Vega 48 sits at the 88th. The percentile gap is smaller than the score gap because both cards occupy the upper band of the overall distribution, but the benchmark results are unambiguous about which is faster.

Context from each card's nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The Frontier Edition's average score of 73370 puts it 1.4 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, 1.8 percent ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, 2.2 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650M, and 3.6 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE. The Pro Vega 48's 60140 average places it essentially level with the Intel Arc Pro A60 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 scores recorded near it, each about 0.3 percent higher, while sitting 2.5 percent above the AMD Radeon PRO V710 and 2.8 percent above the NVIDIA P102-100.

Architecture Differences

In silicon terms these cards are strikingly similar. Both use the Vega 10 chip, both implement GCN 5.0, and both were fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The physical package is identical: 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3M per mm² for each card. The Frontier Edition belongs to the Radeon Pro Vega generation while the Pro Vega 48 belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac generation, which is the clearest indicator of their intended markets.

The differences emerge in how much of that shared die is enabled. The Frontier Edition runs 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a base clock of 1382 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The Pro Vega 48 runs 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs; no base or boost clock is recorded for it in the database. ROP count parity explains why the pixel rate gap, 102.4 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s, traces directly to clock and shader differences rather than output configuration.

Memory is another dividing line. Both use HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, but the Frontier Edition pairs 16 GB running at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) for 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Pro Vega 48 carries 8 GB at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective) for 402.4 GB/s. Halving capacity and slowing the stack costs the Pro Vega 48 roughly a sixth of the Frontier Edition's bandwidth and matters greatly for large datasets.

Half-precision throughput follows the same 2:1 FP16 ratio on both parts: 26.21 TFLOPS on the Frontier Edition, 14.75 TFLOPS on the Pro Vega 48. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 over PCIe 3.0 x16.

Form factor and power delivery diverge completely. The Frontier Edition is a dual-slot discrete card with two 8-pin power connectors, a 300 W TDP, and a suggested 700 W PSU. The Pro Vega 48 is recorded as an IGP with no power connectors, no listed TDP, and no suggested PSU, consistent with its role inside Mac systems. Its display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent, whereas the Frontier Edition provides 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Frontier Edition measures 267 mm long and 111 mm high; no dimensions are recorded for the Pro Vega 48.

Both cards are end-of-life. The Frontier Edition was released in June 2017 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD, following the Radeon Pro Polaris line and preceding Radeon Pro Navi. The Pro Vega 48 arrived later, in March 2019, with no launch MSRP recorded and no listed predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The Vega Frontier Edition wins all three recorded benchmarks. Its average score of 73370 exceeds the Pro Vega 48's 60140, with per-test leads of 4.4 percent in Metal, 41.6 percent in OpenCL, and 24.8 percent in Vulkan.

Q: Are the two cards built on different silicon?

A: No. Both use the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0, manufactured at GlobalFoundries on 14 nm with 12,500 million transistors and a 495 mm² die. The Pro Vega 48 simply enables fewer shading units, 3072 versus 4096.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what bandwidth?

A: The Frontier Edition has 16 GB of HBM2 delivering 483.8 GB/s across a 2048-bit bus. The Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on the same bus width, delivering 402.4 GB/s.

Q: Where do these cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The Frontier Edition sits in the 91st percentile; the Pro Vega 48 sits in the 88th. Both rank in the upper band despite the Frontier Edition's clear head-to-head advantage.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing hardware?

A: No. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Are the cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Frontier Edition launched in 2017 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD, and the Pro Vega 48 followed in 2019.

Specification Differences

• Shading units: 4096 (Frontier Edition) vs 3072 (Pro Vega 48)
• TMUs: 256 vs 192
• FP32 throughput: 13.11 TFLOPS vs 7.373 TFLOPS
• FP16 throughput: 26.21 TFLOPS vs 14.75 TFLOPS (both 2:1)
• Clocks: 1382 MHz base, 1600 MHz boost vs not recorded
• Memory size: 16 GB vs 8 GB HBM2
• Memory speed: 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) vs 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective)
• Bandwidth: 483.8 GB/s vs 402.4 GB/s
• Pixel rate: 102.4 GPixel/s vs 76.80 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 409.6 GTexel/s vs 230.4 GTexel/s
• TDP: 300 W vs not recorded
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs IGP
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin vs none
• Suggested PSU: 700 W vs not recorded
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a vs portable device dependent
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 111 mm height vs not recorded
• Release date: 2017 vs 2019
• Launch MSRP: 999 USD vs not recorded
• Generation: Radeon Pro Vega vs Radeon Pro Mac

ROP count (64), bus width (2048 bit), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16), process node, die size, transistor count, API support, and production status are identical.

Where Each One Wins

The Vega Frontier Edition wins every performance scenario in the recorded data. For compute-heavy OpenCL work, its 41.6 percent lead makes it the only sensible choice of the pair, and its 16 GB of HBM2 at 483.8 GB/s handles datasets that would strain the Pro Vega 48's 8 GB frame. Vulkan workloads favor it by 24.8 percent, and its 13.11 TFLOPS of FP32 and 26.21 TFLOPS of FP16 give it nearly double the Pro Vega 48's compute throughput where the full shader array is engaged. It is also the only one of the two available as a standard discrete card, with dual-slot cooling, dual 8-pin power, and four fixed display outputs, which makes it the practical pick for workstation builds.

The Pro Vega 48's strongest showing is Metal, where it trails by just 4.4 percent. In Apple-centric, Metal-native environments it delivers nearly equivalent results to its larger sibling while existing as an integrated Mac part with no external power connectors. Against its own peer group it holds its own, sitting level with the Intel Arc Pro A60 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 scores recorded near it in the database and ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V710 and NVIDIA P102-100. Its 88th percentile placement confirms a capable upper-tier GPU; it simply faces a sibling with more enabled hardware.

The verdict is straightforward. Where maximum throughput, memory capacity, and API breadth matter, the Frontier Edition is the stronger card in every measured category. The Pro Vega 48 competes only in Metal, and even there it loses, but narrowly enough that within its integrated Mac context the difference is largely academic.