AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE represent two distinct eras of AMD graphics technology. The Pro Vega 56 is a workstation-oriented product from 2017 built on the aging GCN architecture, while the RX 9070 GRE is a 2025 consumer gaming card using the modern RDNA 4 architecture. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison reveals more than just a speed difference—it highlights how architectural evolution changes the feature set, memory subsystem, and overall positioning of a GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is not close. The RX 9070 GRE scores 109,309, while the Pro Vega 56 manages 61,930. That is a 43.3% delta in favor of the newer card, meaning the RX 9070 GRE delivers roughly 76% more compute performance in this workload. This is a massive generational leap, far beyond what a simple clock speed increase would explain.

Looking at the broader context, the Pro Vega 56's average benchmark score across all tests is 63,693, which places it in the 89th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 9070 GRE, despite winning the head-to-head, has a lower average score of 57,367 and sits in the 87th percentile. This seeming contradiction is explained by the fact that the RX 9070 GRE's average includes its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 5,424, a modern test that likely weights differently than the older Geekbench workloads. The Pro Vega 56's scores all come from Geekbench variants (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), which may favor its compute-oriented design.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their positions. The Pro Vega 56's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 7600M with an average score of 63,775, a negligible 0.1% difference. The RX 9070 GRE sits near the Intel Arc A580 (57,756, a 0.7% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, a 1.8% gap). This suggests the RX 9070 GRE, despite being a newer flagship-tier part, is benchmarked in a similar performance tier as these mid-range and previous-generation cards in the aggregated data. The Pro Vega 56, in contrast, holds its own against much newer mobile and low-profile desktop parts, showing its compute-heavy architecture still has relevance in certain workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is enormous. The Pro Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip on the GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The RX 9070 GRE uses the Navi 48 chip on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 53,900 million transistors in a 357 mm² die, achieving a density of 151.0 million per square millimeter—roughly six times denser.

The core configurations differ significantly. The Pro Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 9070 GRE has fewer shading units at 3,072, fewer TMUs at 192, but more ROPs at 96. The RX 9070 GRE also introduces 48 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the older card. The clock speeds tell the real story: the Pro Vega 56 runs at a base of 1,138 MHz and boosts to 1,250 MHz, while the RX 9070 GRE starts at 1,420 MHz base and boosts to 2,790 MHz, with a game clock of 2,220 MHz. This nearly 2.2x boost clock advantage, combined with the architectural efficiency of RDNA 4, explains the massive performance difference.

The FP32 compute figures highlight the shift. The Pro Vega 56 delivers 8.960 TFLOPS, while the RX 9070 GRE delivers 34.28 TFLOPS—a 3.8x increase. The FP16 performance is even more telling: the Pro Vega 56 achieves 17.92 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio (meaning it trades throughput for precision), while the RX 9070 GRE achieves 34.28 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning full-rate FP16 without compromise. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: the RX 9070 GRE hits 267.8 GPixel/s and 535.7 GTexel/s, versus 80.00 GPixel/s and 280.0 GTexel/s for the Pro Vega 56.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: if you are choosing between these two for any modern workload, the RX 9070 GRE is the superior product. It wins the head-to-head benchmark by 43.3%, has a much higher boost clock, more than triple the FP32 throughput, and adds ray tracing support. Its 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, slightly edging out the Pro Vega 56's 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus at 402.4 GB/s. The RX 9070 GRE is also an active product with a launch MSRP of 549 USD, while the Pro Vega 56 is end-of-life.

However, the Pro Vega 56 is not without merit in specific contexts. Its 89th percentile ranking versus the RX 9070 GRE's 87th percentile suggests that in the aggregated benchmark suite, the older card actually performs better relative to the entire GPU landscape. This could be due to its workstation-oriented drivers and the Vulkan and Metal scores that are not part of the RX 9070 GRE's benchmark list. The Pro Vega 56's HBM2 memory, while smaller in capacity, offers a much wider 2048-bit bus, which can be advantageous in certain compute patterns that benefit from extreme memory parallelism.

For a gamer or general-purpose user, the RX 9070 GRE is the obvious choice. It is faster, more modern, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Pro Vega 56's DirectX 12 (12_1), and has better display outputs (HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1a versus HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a). For a professional using legacy compute applications that were optimized for GCN architecture, the Pro Vega 56 might still serve, but the data suggests its performance is now firmly in the mid-range category, matching the likes of the RX 7600M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node jumps from 14 nm to 4 nm, and the foundry changes from GlobalFoundries to TSMC. Transistor count rises from 12,500 million to 53,900 million, while die size shrinks from 495 mm² to 357 mm². Transistor density improves from 25.3M / mm² to 151.0M / mm².

Clock speeds are dramatically different: base clock goes from 1,138 MHz to 1,420 MHz, boost clock from 1,250 MHz to 2,790 MHz, and the RX 9070 GRE adds a game clock of 2,220 MHz that the Pro Vega 56 lacks. Memory capacity increases from 8 GB to 12 GB, type changes from HBM2 to GDDR6, bus width narrows from 2048-bit to 192-bit, but bandwidth improves slightly from 402.4 GB/s to 432.0 GB/s.

Core counts change: shading units drop from 3,584 to 3,072, TMUs drop from 224 to 192, but ROPs increase from 64 to 96. The RX 9070 GRE adds 48 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate rises from 80.00 GPixel/s to 267.8 GPixel/s, texture rate from 280.0 GTexel/s to 535.7 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 8.960 TFLOPS to 34.28 TFLOPS. FP16 performance changes from 17.92 TFLOPS (2:1) to 34.28 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP increases slightly from 210 W to 220 W, but the power delivery changes radically: the Pro Vega 56 is an IGP with no power connectors, while the RX 9070 GRE is a dual-slot card requiring 2x 8-pin connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. Bus interface upgrades from PCIe 3.0 x16 to PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs improve from HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a to HDMI 2.1b and DisplayPort 2.1a. API support advances from DirectX 12 (12_1) to 12 Ultimate (12_2), and Vulkan from 1.3 to 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 9070 GRE delivers 34.28 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.8x the Pro Vega 56's 8.960 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate is also 34.28 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, versus 17.92 TFLOPS at 2:1 for the Pro Vega 56.

Q: How much faster is the RX 9070 GRE in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 9070 GRE scores 109,309 versus 61,930 for the Pro Vega 56, a delta of 43.3% in favor of the newer card.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 9070 GRE has 432.0 GB/s from its 12 GB GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. The Pro Vega 56 has 402.4 GB/s from 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Does the Pro Vega 56 support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 9070 GRE includes 48 ray tracing cores, while the Pro Vega 56 has no ray tracing hardware listed in the data.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Pro Vega 56 is an IGP with no power connectors and a 210 W TDP. The RX 9070 GRE is a dual-slot card with 2x 8-pin connectors, a 220 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Pro Vega 56 ranks in the 89th percentile, higher than the RX 9070 GRE's 87th percentile, despite the newer card winning the direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 GRE is the clear winner in modern gaming and general compute. Its 43.3% lead in OpenCL, superior FP32 and FP16 throughput, and ray tracing support make it the only sensible choice for current titles and future-proofing. The 12 GB memory capacity is 50% larger than the Pro Vega 56's 8 GB, which matters for high-resolution textures. Its PCIe 5.0 interface and DisplayPort 2.1a outputs align with the latest platforms and monitors.

The Pro Vega 56 retains a niche in legacy workstation applications. Its 89th percentile ranking suggests it still outperforms most GPUs in the aggregated benchmark data, likely due to its optimized Vulkan and Metal scores. The 2048-bit HBM2 memory interface, though slower in raw bandwidth, offers extreme memory parallelism that some compute workloads favor. Its IGP form factor with no power connectors means it can be integrated into systems where a discrete card is impossible. For anyone running software specifically optimized for GCN architecture, the Pro Vega 56 remains functional, but the data shows its performance has been eclipsed by the modern RDNA 4 design.