AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records two direct comparisons between the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, and in both, the newer card takes a commanding lead. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the PRO W7700 scores 108,245 against the Vega 64's 71,094, a 52.3% advantage. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the margin widens dramatically: the PRO W7700 posts 129,706 versus 74,174, which is a 74.9% gap. That Vulkan result is the single largest performance differential in this head-to-head, and it speaks to how far the architecture has moved in six years.

Looking at the broader database context, the PRO W7700's average benchmark score is 118,976, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals are the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (1.3% slower), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 (1.6% slower), and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (4% slower). Meanwhile, the Radeon Pro Vega 64 averages 72,379, sitting in the 91st percentile, with nearest rivals including the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73,370 (1.4% faster) and the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal at 72,098 (0.4% slower). The delta between the two AMD cards is not a minor generational bump; it is a full tier of separation.

The OpenCL result is worth unpacking. A 52.3% lead in OpenCL suggests that raw compute throughput, FP32 capability, and memory bandwidth all favor the PRO W7700, but the Vulkan gap of 74.9% hints at additional advantages in driver efficiency and architecture-level features. The Vega 64 does have more shading units (4096 versus 3072) and more texture mapping units (256 versus 192), yet it still loses by a wide margin. That inversion is a clear signal that the older GCN 5.0 design cannot extract the same instruction-level efficiency from these APIs as the newer RDNA 3.0 implementation.

The PRO W7700 also holds the edge in every derived metric that matters. Pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s for the Vega 64, a near-triple in fillrate throughput. Texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s versus 345.6 GTexel/s, a 44% advantage. FP32 compute is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS, meaning the PRO W7700 delivers roughly 2.9 times the single-precision performance. FP16 follows suit at 63.90 TFLOPS versus 22.12 TFLOPS. None of these are close calls.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins both recorded benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits higher in the percentile ranking. If the choice is strictly between these two for a workload that depends on OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the PRO W7700 is the correct pick. The benchmark results indicate a 52.3% lead in OpenCL and a 74.9% lead in Vulkan, which is not a marginal improvement but a generational leap.

That said, the Radeon Pro Vega 64 is not without a niche. It remains in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, and its average score of 72,379 is respectable for a card from 2017. In the database, it trades blows with the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (0.4% slower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (0.9% slower). If a system is already built around the Vega 64, and the workload does not push Vulkan or OpenCL hard, it can still hold its own against mid-range modern parts. But for new purchases or upgrades, the PRO W7700 is the only rational choice based on recorded measurements.

The production status also matters. The Vega 64 is marked as end-of-life, while the PRO W7700 has no such designation. For long-term deployments, that distinction alone tips the scale. The PRO W7700 also supports newer API revisions: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. These are forward-looking advantages that will matter as software stacks evolve.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different eras of AMD GPU design. The Radeon PRO W7700 is built on the Navi 32 chip using RDNA 3.0 architecture, on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That process shrink alone explains a large portion of the performance gap: the PRO W7700 packs 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The Vega 64 has 12,500 million transistors on a larger 495 mm² die, with a density of just 25.3 million per mm². The newer chip fits more than twice the transistors into a smaller area.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The PRO W7700 runs at a 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, while the Vega 64 is stuck at 1250 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost. That is a 91% higher boost clock for the RDNA 3 card. Memory is also a major differentiator: the PRO W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Vega 64 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 402.4 GB/s. The Vega 64's wider bus cannot compensate for the lower memory clock (786 MHz versus 2250 MHz) and older memory technology.

The PRO W7700 includes 48 ray tracing cores, which the Vega 64 lacks entirely. That is a structural feature difference, not just a clock speed gap. The RDNA 3 card also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Vega 64 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the PRO W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the Vega 64's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. Power delivery also diverges: the PRO W7700 draws 190 W TDP with a single 8-pin connector, while the Vega 64 draws 250 W TDP and uses no external power connector, suggesting it was designed for integrated or proprietary systems.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The PRO W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16, versus the Vega 64's 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.12 TFLOPS FP16. The PRO W7700 is roughly 2.9 times faster in FP32.

Q: Does the Vega 64 have any advantage in memory bus width?

A: Yes, the Vega 64 uses a 2048-bit bus versus the PRO W7700's 256-bit bus. However, the PRO W7700 still achieves higher bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s due to faster GDDR6 memory at 2250 MHz.

Q: Which card supports newer APIs?

A: The PRO W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Is the Vega 64 still being produced?

A: The database marks the Vega 64 as end-of-life. The PRO W7700 has no such production status designation.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The PRO W7700 averages 118,976 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Vega 64 averages 72,379. The PRO W7700 sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, the Vega 64 in the 91st.

Q: Does the PRO W7700 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the PRO W7700 includes 48 ray tracing cores. The Vega 64 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The PRO W7700 wins everywhere the database records a comparison. In OpenCL, it leads by 52.3%. In Vulkan, it leads by 74.9%. Its average score is 64% higher than the Vega 64's. The PRO W7700 also holds advantages in pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s), texture rate (499.2 GTexel/s versus 345.6 GTexel/s), and memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s). For any workload that stresses compute, fillrate, or modern API features, the PRO W7700 is the only option with a winning record.

The Vega 64's wins are more contextual than absolute. It has more shading units (4096 versus 3072) and more TMUs (256 versus 192), which could theoretically benefit certain legacy workloads that scale with raw unit count rather than per-unit efficiency. It also has a wider memory bus, which may matter in specific HPC tasks that favor HBM2 over GDDR6. Its lower TDP of 250 W versus 190 W is actually a disadvantage, but the lack of external power connectors means it can fit into systems with no 8-pin cable available. For a Mac-based or portable-device deployment where the display outputs are dependent on the host system, the Vega 64 may be the only one of the two that physically fits.

But the benchmark data does not show any test where the Vega 64 wins. The nearest it comes is in the percentile comparison, where its 91st percentile rank is still respectable, but the PRO W7700 sits at 95th. In the database's nearest rival lists, the Vega 64's closest competitor is the Vega Frontier Edition, which beats it by 1.4%, while the PRO W7700 beats its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, by 1.3%. The pattern is consistent: the PRO W7700 competes at a higher tier entirely.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 12,500 million |

| Die size | 346 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Base clock | 1900 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2600 MHz | 1350 MHz |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory bus | 256 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory clock | 2250 MHz | 786 MHz |

| Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 402.4 GB/s |

| Shading units | 3072 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray tracing cores | 48 | None |

| Pixel rate | 249.6 GPixel/s | 86.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 499.2 GTexel/s | 345.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.95 TFLOPS | 11.06 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 63.90 TFLOPS | 22.12 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 190 W | 250 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable device dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release date | 2023-11-12 | 2017-06-26 |

| Production status | Not specified | End-of-life |

The table shows a clean sweep of architectural improvements for the PRO W7700. The only areas where the Vega 64 posts higher numbers are shading units, TMUs, die size, and memory bus width, none of which translate into a benchmark win. The PRO W7700 compensates with higher clocks, faster memory, and a denser transistor layout. The release date gap of over six years explains the rest.