AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 across every benchmark in the data, with an average score advantage of roughly 13.6% that positions the Vega 64 in the 91st percentile of all GPUs compared to the Vega 56's 89th percentile. The Vega 64 wins all three head-to-head tests, with its largest margin coming in OpenCL workloads where it leads by 14.8%, while its smallest but still substantial victory occurs in Vulkan at 12.4%. These results establish a clear performance hierarchy within AMD's Vega 10-based professional mobile lineup, where the 64 variant consistently delivers between 12% and 15% higher raw compute output across different API frameworks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test shows the Vega 64 scoring 71,868 against the Vega 56's 63,145, a 13.8% delta that represents the middle ground of the performance gap. This margin is substantial enough to translate into noticeably smoother graphics workloads in Metal-optimized applications, which is particularly relevant for macOS-based professional workflows where Metal is the primary graphics API. The Vega 64's 71,868 Metal score places it just 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098 average) and 0.9% above the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71,768), meaning it sits in elite company despite being an older architecture.

In OpenCL, the gap widens to its maximum: the Vega 64 scores 71,094 versus 61,930 for the Vega 56, a 14.8% advantage. This is the most compute-intensive benchmark of the three, and the larger delta suggests that the Vega 64's additional shading units and higher clock speeds yield disproportionate gains in raw parallel processing tasks. The Vega 64's OpenCL result is notably stronger than its Metal score relative to the Vega 56, indicating that the architecture's compute capabilities scale more aggressively with the increased hardware resources when using OpenCL's more direct hardware access model.

The Vulkan test shows the smallest relative gap, with the Vega 64 scoring 74,174 against 66,004 for the Vega 56, a 12.4% difference. Interestingly, both cards achieve their highest absolute scores in Vulkan, with the Vega 64's 74,174 being its best result across all three APIs. This suggests that the Vega architecture responds well to Vulkan's lower-level API design, and the Vega 64's margin in this test—while still commanding—is slightly compressed compared to OpenCL, possibly due to API overhead mitigation that benefits both cards similarly.

The average benchmark score tells the same story: the Vega 64 averages 72,379 across all tests, while the Vega 56 averages 63,693, a difference that aligns with the individual test deltas. The Vega 64's average puts it 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370) and 2.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829), while the Vega 56's average trails the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775) by just 0.1% and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212) by 0.8%. These rival comparisons confirm that the Vega 64 competes at a higher performance tier entirely, while the Vega 56 sits closer to mid-range mobile offerings.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 5.0 on the Vega 10 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 25.3M per mm², confirming that the performance difference stems entirely from how many of those transistors are active and how fast they operate, not from any architectural redesign. The Vega 64 enables 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, while the Vega 56 scales down to 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and retains the same 64 ROPs. This 12.5% reduction in shading units and TMUs directly explains much of the performance gap, as the Vega 64 has more parallel execution resources to feed.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Vega 64 runs at a 1,250 MHz base clock and 1,350 MHz boost, while the Vega 56 operates at 1,138 MHz base and 1,250 MHz boost. The Vega 64's boost clock equals the Vega 56's base clock plus 100 MHz, and its base clock is already 112 MHz higher than the Vega 56's boost. This combined effect—more shading units running at higher frequencies—produces the observed 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 throughput for the Vega 64 versus 8.960 TFLOPS for the Vega 56, a 23.4% raw compute advantage. The FP16 rates scale identically at 2:1, giving the Vega 64 22.12 TFLOPS and the Vega 56 17.92 TFLOPS.

Memory configuration is another significant differentiator. The Vega 64 ships with 16 GB of HBM2 memory, exactly double the Vega 56's 8 GB, though both use the same 2048-bit bus width and achieve identical 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is also identical at 786 MHz (1,572 Mbps effective), meaning the Vega 64's advantage is purely capacity, not speed. This doubling of VRAM could be critical for large dataset workloads, but it does not affect raw throughput metrics. Pixel and texture rates reflect the hardware differences: the Vega 64 delivers 86.40 GPixel/s and 345.6 GTexel/s, while the Vega 56 manages 80.00 GPixel/s and 280.0 GTexel/s, showing that ROP throughput is closer due to identical ROP counts, but texture performance suffers more from the reduced TMU count.

Power consumption scales with performance: the Vega 64 is rated at 250 W TDP versus 210 W for the Vega 56, a 19% increase that is justified by the 23.4% higher FP32 throughput but also indicates less power efficiency per FLOP. Both are integrated graphics processors (IGP) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, though the Vega 56 lists specific outputs of 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a while the Vega 64's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, and both connect via PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins every benchmark category in the data, making its case straightforward: it is the superior choice for any workload that benefits from raw compute throughput, higher clock speeds, or doubled memory capacity. Its 23.4% FP32 advantage and 16 GB of HBM2 memory make it particularly suited for large-scale compute tasks, machine learning inference, or rendering scenes that exceed 8 GB of working set. The Vega 64's 91st percentile ranking versus the Vega 56's 89th percentile confirms it sits in a higher performance class, and its proximity to the TITAN X Pascal (0.4% ahead) and Vega Frontier Edition (1.4% behind) places it among professional-grade compute accelerators.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56's only wins are in efficiency-adjacent metrics: it draws 40 W less power at 210 W TDP versus 250 W, and it achieves that lower power draw while still maintaining the same 402.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64 ROPs. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or ROP-limited rather than shader-bound, the Vega 56 loses less ground—its pixel rate of 80.00 GPixel/s is only 7.4% lower than the Vega 64's 86.40 GPixel/s, compared to the much larger FP32 gap. The Vega 56 also carries a 0.1% advantage over the AMD Radeon RX 7600M in average score, showing it remains competitive with newer mid-range mobile parts.

In practical terms, the Vega 64 is the clear pick for GPU compute, OpenCL-heavy scientific workloads, and Vulkan-based rendering where its 12.4-14.8% benchmark leads translate directly to faster completion times. The Vega 56 makes sense only where the 40 W power saving is paramount and the workload rarely exceeds 8 GB of memory or does not require the extra shading units—situations where its smaller performance deficit in pixel throughput relative to its power draw might tip the balance. However, for any task that can utilize more than 8 GB of VRAM, the Vega 64's doubled capacity is an insurmountable advantage regardless of power considerations.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 than the Vega 56 in average benchmark scores?

A: The Vega 64 averages 72,379 across all benchmark tests, while the Vega 56 averages 63,693, giving the Vega 64 a 13.6% overall advantage. This is consistent with the individual test margins, which range from 12.4% in Vulkan to 14.8% in OpenCL.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth despite different memory sizes?

A: Yes, both cards use HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus and achieve identical 402.4 GB/s bandwidth at the same 786 MHz memory clock. The only memory difference is capacity: the Vega 64 has 16 GB while the Vega 56 has 8 GB.

Q: What makes the Vega 64's FP32 performance so much higher than the Vega 56's?

A: The Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units running at a 1,350 MHz boost clock, producing 11.06 TFLOPS, while the Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units at a 1,250 MHz boost clock, producing 8.960 TFLOPS. The combination of 12.5% more shading units and higher clock speeds yields a 23.4% FP32 advantage.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Vega 64's average score places it 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370). The Vega 56's average is 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (63,775) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (64,212).

Q: Is the Vega 56 more power-efficient than the Vega 64?

A: The Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP versus 250 W for the Vega 64, a 40 W difference. However, the Vega 64 delivers 23.4% more FP32 performance for only 19% more power, meaning the Vega 64 is actually more efficient per teraflop.

Q: Do the cards differ in their supported graphics APIs?

A: No, both cards support the exact same APIs: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The performance differences between them in each API benchmark are due to hardware resources, not software feature support.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 |

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

| Shading Units | 4096 | 3584 |

| TMUs | 256 | 224 |

| Base Clock | 1250 MHz | 1138 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1350 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 80.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 345.6 GTexel/s | 280.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 11.06 TFLOPS | 8.960 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.92 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 210 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2017-06-26 | 2017-08-13 |

| Percentile | 91 | 89 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 72379 | 63693 |

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 for anyone who prioritizes raw performance. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks with margins between 12.4% and 14.8%, delivers 23.4% more FP32 compute, and offers double the memory capacity at 16 GB versus 8 GB. Its 91st percentile ranking versus the Vega 56's 89th percentile, combined with its competitive positioning against the TITAN X Pascal (0.4% ahead) and Vega Frontier Edition (1.4% behind), places it in a performance class that the Vega 56 simply does not reach. The only scenario where the Vega 56 makes sense is when the 40 W lower TDP is an absolute constraint and workloads never approach the 8 GB memory ceiling—but even then, the Vega 56 still trails by 12-15% in every measurable benchmark.

For professional users running Metal-accelerated macOS applications, OpenCL compute workloads, or Vulkan-based renderers, the Vega 64's 71,868-74,174 benchmark scores represent a substantial productivity gain over the Vega 56's 63,145-66,004 range. The higher power draw of 250 W versus 210 W is a reasonable trade-off for the performance uplift, especially given that the Vega 64 is more efficient per FLOP. The Vega 56's only genuine advantages are its lower power consumption and a 0.1% edge over the RX 7600M in average score, neither of which compensates for the Vega 64's across-the-board dominance. The verdict is unambiguous: the Vega 64 is the superior GPU by every performance metric in the data, and the Vega 56's only justification is a strict power budget where its 40 W savings outweigh a 13.6% average performance deficit.