AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Comparison

NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 4090 and AMD's Radeon Pro Vega 48 occupy vastly different tiers of performance, despite sitting within 0.3% of each other in average benchmark score. The data shows the RTX 4090 is overwhelmingly dominant in compute and graphics workloads, while the Pro Vega 48 holds its ground only in the narrow context of its specific benchmark suite. The RTX 4090 wins 2 out of 2 shared head-to-head tests, with margins exceeding 370% in both cases. This is not a close contest in raw capability; it is a comparison between a modern flagship and a legacy professional mobile GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The GeForce RTX 4090 obliterates the Radeon Pro Vega 48 in every directly comparable test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4090 scores 255,416 against the Pro Vega 48's 53,757, a delta of 375.1% in favor of NVIDIA. This means the RTX 4090 delivers nearly 4.75 times the OpenCL compute performance of the AMD part. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 4090 scores 271,631 versus 57,653 for the Pro Vega 48, a 371.1% advantage. These are not marginal improvements; they represent generational leaps in throughput.

The RTX 4090's broader benchmark profile reinforces this dominance. Its Passmark G3D score is 38,194, while the Pro Vega 48 has no comparable DirectX result in the shared data. The RTX 4090 also posts 26,613 in Passmark GPU Compute, 1,299 in Passmark G2D, and strong legacy DirectX scores: 397 in DirectX 9, 326 in DirectX 11, 224 in DirectX 10, and 150 in DirectX 12. The Pro Vega 48's only additional benchmark is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 69,010 — a test the RTX 4090 does not participate in. Even with that Metal result, the Pro Vega 48's average benchmark score of 60,140 trails the RTX 4090's 60,347 by a negligible 0.3%, but this parity is an artifact of the limited test set, not real-world equivalence.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different technology generations. The RTX 4090 uses the AD102 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die for a density of 125.3M transistors per mm². The Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die and a density of just 25.3M per mm². The RTX 4090's process advantage allows it to fit over six times more transistors while using a die only 23% larger.

Architecturally, the RTX 4090 runs Ada Lovelace, while the Pro Vega 48 runs GCN 5.0. The RTX 4090 features 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs, compared to 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the Pro Vega 48. This is a 5.3x advantage in shading units and a 2.7x advantage in ROPs. The RTX 4090 also brings dedicated hardware the AMD card lacks entirely: 128 ray tracing cores and 512 tensor cores. The Pro Vega 48 has no ray tracing or tensor core equivalents, reflecting its pre-RDNA design. The RTX 4090 also 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.

Memory systems diverge sharply. The RTX 4090 carries 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, which sounds wide but only reaches 402.4 GB/s due to lower memory clocks. The RTX 4090's memory runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective), while the Pro Vega 48's memory runs at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). The RTX 4090's bandwidth advantage is 2.5x, which matters enormously for high-resolution textures and compute workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4090 wins in every category where both cards have data. Its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are more than 370% higher, making it the clear choice for GPU compute, machine learning inference, and Vulkan-based gaming or rendering. The 82.58 TFLOPS FP32 and 82.58 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) throughput on the RTX 4090 dwarfs the Pro Vega 48's 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.75 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). For any workload that stresses raw shader throughput — 3D rendering, physics simulation, or video processing — the RTX 4090 is in a different league.

The Pro Vega 48's only unique advantage is its Geekbench Metal score of 69,010, which the RTX 4090 cannot contest because it lacks a Metal result in the data. This makes the AMD card relevant exclusively for macOS environments where Metal is the primary API. Its IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs also suggest it was designed for integrated use in Apple systems, not as a standalone desktop card. The Pro Vega 48's 14 nm process and 8 GB HBM2 memory are not competitive for modern AAA gaming, but the card still holds an 88th percentile rank among all GPUs, matching the RTX 4090's percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 4090 averages 60,347, while the Pro Vega 48 averages 60,140. The RTX 4090 leads by 0.3%, which is within the margin of error for the limited shared test set.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4090 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4090 scores 255,416 versus 53,757 for the Pro Vega 48, a 375.1% advantage. This makes the NVIDIA card roughly 4.75 times faster.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 48 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro Vega 48 has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX 4090 has 128 dedicated RT cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 4090 provides 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth from 24 GB GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus. The Pro Vega 48 provides 402.4 GB/s from 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The RTX 4090, with a Vulkan score of 271,631 versus 57,653 for the Pro Vega 48, a 371.1% difference. The RTX 4090 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro Vega 48 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Is the Pro Vega 48 competitive in any metric?

A: The Pro Vega 48's Geekbench Metal score of 69,010 is its only benchmark without a direct RTX 4090 comparison. Its 88th percentile ranking matches the RTX 4090, but this reflects the overall GPU population, not head-to-head performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is the superior card for any workload measured in the shared benchmark suite. Its 375.1% lead in OpenCL and 371.1% lead in Vulkan are decisive. The RTX 4090's 82.58 TFLOPS FP32, 1.01 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 24 GB VRAM make it suitable for high-end gaming, professional rendering, and compute tasks. The Pro Vega 48's 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 402.4 GB/s bandwidth are a fraction of that capability.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 should only be chosen if the target platform is exclusively macOS and Metal-based, as its 69,010 Metal score is the only performance data point where it stands alone. For any Windows, Linux, or Vulkan-based environment, the RTX 4090 is the only rational choice from these two. The RTX 4090's launch MSRP is 1,599 USD, and it is end-of-life, but that price reflects its flagship positioning. The Pro Vega 48 has no launch MSRP listed, and its IGP form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs limit it to niche integrated applications. Pick the RTX 4090 for performance; pick the Pro Vega 48 only if the system demands it.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 |

|-------|------------------------|------------------------|

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 76,300 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 609 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 125.3M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6X | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.01 TB/s | 402.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 512 | 192 |

| ROPs | 176 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 128 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 512 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 443.5 GPixel/s | 76.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,290.2 GTexel/s | 230.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 82.58 TFLOPS | 7.373 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 82.58 TFLOPS (1:1) | 14.75 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 450 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 850 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-09-19 | 2019-03-18 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |