AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits this comparison into two very different profiles. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 holds a narrow edge in the composite average, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile dominates in raw compute workloads. Looking at the database entries, the AMD part achieves an average benchmark score of 60,140, which places it at the 88th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The NVIDIA part, by contrast, averages 43,667 across its broader test suite, sitting at the 84th percentile. That overall average is pulled down by the inclusion of several PassMark legacy tests where the NVIDIA part records relatively low scores, such as 107 in DirectX 12 and 173 in DirectX 10.

The AMD GPU has only three benchmark entries in the database: Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. It wins none of the head-to-head comparisons. The NVIDIA part wins both shared tests, with a 70.3% advantage in OpenCL and a 66.2% advantage in Vulkan. The use-case split becomes clear: if the workload is a modern compute API like OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA part is decisively faster. If the workload relies on Metal, the AMD part has a score of 69,010, though the NVIDIA part has no comparable Metal entry in the database. The AMD GPU's niche appears to be Apple-oriented environments, given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation classification and its integrated graphics package. The NVIDIA part, meanwhile, targets Windows and Linux mobile workstations where its 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores can accelerate ray tracing and AI workloads that the AMD part cannot handle at all.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The die measures 495 mm² and holds 12,500 million transistors, yielding a density of 25.3 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile uses the AD103 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. Its die is smaller at 379 mm² but packs 45,900 million transistors, achieving 121.1 million transistors per mm². That density difference is stark: the NVIDIA part crams nearly four times more transistors into a smaller area.

The memory subsystems also diverge completely. AMD pairs its chip with 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 576.0 GB/s. The AMD approach uses a wider bus with slower memory, while NVIDIA uses a narrower bus with much faster effective speeds. The NVIDIA memory runs at 18 Gbps effective, compared to AMD's 1572 Mbps effective, a factor of more than eleven in raw memory clock.

The compute resources differ by an even wider margin. AMD offers 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. NVIDIA offers 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. NVIDIA also adds 76 dedicated RT cores and 304 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the AMD chip. The pixel rate tells the story: NVIDIA achieves 189.8 GPixel/s versus AMD's 76.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 515.3 GTexel/s versus 230.4 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is 32.98 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 7.373 TFLOPS for AMD. The NVIDIA part also runs FP16 at the same 32.98 TFLOPS rate, while AMD's FP16 is 14.75 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and both favor the NVIDIA part by a substantial margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 scores 53,757, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180,831. That is a 70.3% difference in NVIDIA's favor. The gap is so large that it suggests the AMD part is not merely slower but operates in a different performance class for compute workloads. The NVIDIA GPU's 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, combined with its 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, explains why OpenCL results diverge so sharply.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the pattern repeats. AMD scores 57,653, NVIDIA scores 170,774, a 66.2% difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose hardware differences more directly than OpenCL, and the results confirm that NVIDIA's architecture scales better with this workload. The AMD GPU's GCN 5.0 design, dating from a 2019 release, does not have the raw throughput to compete with the 2023 Ada Lovelace design.

The database also shows that the AMD GPU's average score of 60,140 places it within 0.3% of the Intel Arc Pro A60 and the desktop NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. The nearest rivals for the NVIDIA mobile part are different: it sits within 0.8% of the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 and 0.9% of both the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile and the Quadro M6000 24 GB. The AMD GPU's percentile rank of 88 versus NVIDIA's 84 reflects the fact that the AMD part's limited test set skews toward modern APIs, while NVIDIA's broader suite includes legacy DirectX tests that drag down its average.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 14 nm for AMD versus 5 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count is 12,500 million versus 45,900 million. Die size is 495 mm² versus 379 mm². Memory size is 8 GB versus 16 GB. Memory type is HBM2 versus GDDR6. Bus width is 2048 bit versus 256 bit. Memory bandwidth is 402.4 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s. Shading units are 3,072 versus 9,728. TMUs are 192 versus 304. ROPs are 64 versus 112. RT cores are absent versus 76. Tensor cores are absent versus 304. Pixel rate is 76.80 GPixel/s versus 189.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 230.4 GTexel/s versus 515.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 7.373 TFLOPS versus 32.98 TFLOPS. FP16 is 14.75 TFLOPS versus 32.98 TFLOPS. Memory clock is 786 MHz versus 2250 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base clock of 1335 MHz and a boost of 1695 MHz; the AMD part has no recorded base or boost clock. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan support is 1.3 versus 1.4. The AMD part has no TDP listed, while NVIDIA lists 120 W. Release dates are March 2019 versus January 2023. Production status is end-of-life versus active. The NVIDIA part lists a predecessor in GeForce 30 Mobile and a successor in GeForce 50 Mobile; the AMD part lists neither.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 has an average score of 60,140, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile's 43,667. However, the averages are computed over different test sets, with NVIDIA including multiple PassMark legacy tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, NVIDIA leads by 70.3%, scoring 180,831 versus 53,757. In Geekbench Vulkan, NVIDIA leads by 66.2%, scoring 170,774 versus 57,653.

Q: Does the AMD GPU have any ray tracing or tensor core capability?

A: No. The database lists no RT cores and no tensor cores for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile has 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD GPU provides 402.4 GB/s over a 2048-bit HBM2 interface. The NVIDIA GPU provides 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 interface. NVIDIA's bandwidth is 43% higher despite a much narrower bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: AMD's 14 nm chip achieves 25.3 million transistors per mm². NVIDIA's 5 nm chip achieves 121.1 million transistors per mm², roughly 4.8 times higher density.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 sits at the 88th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile sits at the 84th percentile. The AMD part's ranking benefits from its smaller, more focused benchmark set.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile is the superior compute performer in every shared benchmark, with margins exceeding 66% in both OpenCL and Vulkan. Its 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and dedicated RT and tensor cores make it the obvious choice for any application that can leverage those resources. The 120 W TDP, despite being a mobile part, indicates a high-power design that trades efficiency for performance.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 occupies a different niche. Its 88th percentile ranking and 60,140 average score come from a test set that includes Geekbench Metal, which suggests a macOS-oriented workload. The GPU is classified as an integrated graphics package with no power connectors, and its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation points to Apple systems. For users running Metal-based applications in that ecosystem, the AMD part has a score of 69,010 in that specific test. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads on a mobile workstation, the NVIDIA part is overwhelmingly faster.

The specification table reinforces the generational gap. AMD's 14 nm process, 12,500 million transistors, and 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 performance are from an earlier era. NVIDIA's 5 nm process, 45,900 million transistors, and 32.98 TFLOPS represent a more modern design with nearly 4.5 times the raw floating-point throughput. The NVIDIA GPU also supports newer APIs, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile for maximum compute performance, modern API support, and ray tracing capability. Pick the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 only if the target environment is specifically macOS with Metal-based applications, where its integrated design and 88th percentile ranking make it a viable option. The database shows no scenario where the AMD part wins a head-to-head benchmark against the NVIDIA part.