AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 dominates the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 in every benchmark where both cards appear in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4080 scores 214,739 versus 61,930 for the Radeon Pro Vega 56, a delta of 71.2% in NVIDIA’s favor. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the RTX 4080 posts 263,779 against 66,004, a 75% advantage. These are not marginal wins; they are generational gaps expressed in raw compute throughput.

The RTX 4080’s average benchmark score of 54,247 is actually lower than the Radeon Pro Vega 56’s 63,693 average, but that is a function of the test suite composition. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is measured only across three Geekbench workloads (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), all of which are compute-oriented. The RTX 4080’s average pulls in PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 results, along with PassMark G2D, G3D, and GPU compute scores, plus 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 6,567 and the PassMark G3D score of 34,457 are not directly comparable to any Radeon Pro Vega 56 result, so the head-to-head comparison rests on the two shared tests. In both, the RTX 4080 is the clear winner.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the Radeon Pro Vega 56 sits at the 89th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 4080 sits at the 86th percentile. This might seem contradictory given the RTX 4080’s massive win in shared workloads, but the percentile field reflects each card’s standing within the full database of tested GPUs, not just this pairing. The Radeon Pro Vega 56’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7600M (delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA CMP 30HX (delta 0.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 (delta 0.8%). The RTX 4080’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER (delta 0.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (delta 1.1%), the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (delta 2.6%), and the AMD Radeon 8060S (delta 2.7%). The Radeon Pro Vega 56’s percentile is boosted by its consistently strong compute scores, while the RTX 4080’s lower percentile reflects the broader, more varied workload mix in its benchmark set.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent completely different design philosophies separated by five years of silicon evolution. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 uses the AD103 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm². The RTX 4080 fits nearly four times the transistors into a smaller physical area, which explains its enormous performance advantage.

The compute configuration differs just as sharply. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RTX 4080 has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. That is 2.7 times more shading units, 1.4 times more TMUs, and 1.75 times more ROPs. The RTX 4080 also brings dedicated hardware the Radeon Pro Vega 56 lacks entirely: 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 has no RT cores and no tensor cores in the database record. For any workload that leverages ray tracing or tensor acceleration, the RTX 4080 is not just faster, it is in a different category.

Clock speeds reinforce the architectural gap. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 runs at a base clock of 1138 MHz and a boost clock of 1250 MHz. The RTX 4080 runs at 2205 MHz base and 2505 MHz boost, roughly double the frequency. Memory technology also diverges completely. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective memory speed of 1572 Mbps. The RTX 4080 uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 716.8 GB/s at 22.4 Gbps effective. The RTX 4080 has twice the capacity and 78% more bandwidth, despite a much narrower bus, thanks to the higher per-pin data rate of GDDR6X.

Rates and throughput numbers follow the same pattern. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 achieves 80.00 GPixel/s pixel rate and 280.0 GTexel/s texture rate, with 8.960 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.92 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The RTX 4080 achieves 280.6 GPixel/s and 761.5 GTexel/s, with 48.74 TFLOPS FP32 and 48.74 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The RTX 4080 is 3.5 times faster in pixel rate, 2.7 times faster in texture rate, and 5.4 times faster in FP32. Notably, the RTX 4080’s FP16 throughput matches its FP32 throughput, while the Radeon Pro Vega 56 achieves FP16 only through a 2:1 rate, meaning half the FP32 rate for half-precision work.

Interface and power characteristics also differ meaningfully. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX 4080 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no power connectors and a 210 W TDP. The RTX 4080 is a triple-slot card with a single 16-pin connector, a 320 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 700 W. Physical dimensions are only recorded for the RTX 4080: 310 mm long, 140 mm tall, and 61 mm wide. The Radeon Pro Vega 56’s dimensions are not listed in the database.

API support shows a smaller gap. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The RTX 4080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4080’s DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes features like mesh shaders and DXR that the older GCN architecture cannot fully expose. Display outputs are similar: both have 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, but the Radeon Pro Vega 56 adds 1x HDMI 2.0b while the RTX 4080 adds 1x HDMI 2.1.

The Verdict

For any user choosing between these two cards based on the recorded benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 is the definitive pick. It wins both head-to-head workloads by margins of 71.2% and 75%. Its architecture is newer, denser, and equipped with dedicated ray tracing and tensor hardware that the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 simply does not have. Its memory subsystem is larger and faster, its pixel and texture rates are multiple times higher, and its FP32 throughput is over five times higher.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 does have strengths in the database, but they are contextual. Its average benchmark score of 63,693 is higher than the RTX 4080’s 54,247, driven entirely by its Geekbench Metal score of 63,145, which has no RTX 4080 counterpart in the record. The Radeon Pro Vega 56 also carries a 210 W TDP versus 320 W for the RTX 4080, and it is an IGP with no external power connectors, which suits compact or pre-integrated systems. Users who need a low-power integrated solution with strong OpenCL and Vulkan compute may find the Radeon Pro Vega 56 adequate. Users who need maximum compute throughput, modern API features, ray tracing, tensor acceleration, or any form of gaming performance should choose the RTX 4080 without hesitation.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 wins decisively, scoring 214,739 versus 61,930 for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56, a delta of 71.2%.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Vega 56 have ray tracing cores?

A: No. The database records no ray tracing cores for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 has 76 ray tracing cores.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 has 8 GB of HBM2 with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 has 16 GB of GDDR6X with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP and requires no power connectors. The RTX 4080 has a 320 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin connector, and has a suggested PSU of 700 W.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 has a higher average benchmark score at 63,693, compared to 54,247 for the RTX 4080, though the two cards are measured on different benchmark sets.

Q: What API features differ between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 56 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The RTX 4080 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 wins every shared benchmark in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 71.2%. In Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 75%. Beyond the head-to-head tests, the RTX 4080’s architectural advantages point to wins in any workload that uses ray tracing cores (it has 76), tensor cores (it has 304), or high FP32 throughput (48.74 TFLOPS versus 8.960 TFLOPS). Its higher pixel rate (280.6 GPixel/s versus 80.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (761.5 GTexel/s versus 280.0 GTexel/s) make it the stronger choice for rasterization-heavy tasks. Its 16 GB GDDR6X memory with 716.8 GB/s bandwidth provides headroom for large datasets that would exceed the Radeon Pro Vega 56’s 8 GB HBM2 pool.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 wins in scenarios defined by power and integration constraints. At 210 W with no power connectors and an IGP form factor, it fits systems where the RTX 4080’s triple-slot size, 16-pin connector, and 320 W TDP would be impossible. Its Geekbench Metal score of 63,145 is the highest single metric in its record, and it is the only card in this pairing with a Metal result. For Apple-centric compute environments or compact pre-built systems, the Radeon Pro Vega 56 remains serviceable. Its average benchmark score of 63,693 also exceeds the RTX 4080’s 54,247, so within the specific compute-heavy tests that define its record, it holds its own. But the database’s direct comparisons, the only true apples-to-apples data available, favor the RTX 4080 in both cases.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the database:

• Chip: AMD Vega 10 versus NVIDIA AD103
• Architecture: GCN 5.0 versus Ada Lovelace
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) versus GeForce 40
• Process node: 14 nm versus 5 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC
• Transistors: 12,500 million versus 45,900 million
• Die size: 495 mm² versus 379 mm²
• Transistor density: 25.3M / mm² versus 121.1M / mm²
• Base clock: 1138 MHz versus 2205 MHz
• Boost clock: 1250 MHz versus 2505 MHz
• Memory clock: 1572 Mbps effective versus 22.4 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 8 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory type: HBM2 versus GDDR6X
• Memory bus width: 2048 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 402.4 GB/s versus 716.8 GB/s
• Shading units: 3584 versus 9728
• TMUs: 224 versus 304
• ROPs: 64 versus 112
• RT cores: 0 versus 76
• Tensor cores: 0 versus 304
• Pixel rate: 80.00 GPixel/s versus 280.6 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 280.0 GTexel/s versus 761.5 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.960 TFLOPS versus 48.74 TFLOPS
• FP16: 17.92 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 48.74 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 210 W versus 320 W
• Slot width: IGP versus Triple-slot
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: not listed versus 700 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan support: 1.3 versus 1.4
• Release date: 2017-08-13 versus 2022-09-19
• Successor: not listed versus GeForce 50
• Predecessor: not listed versus GeForce 30
• Launch MSRP: not listed versus 1,199 USD