AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data places the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 decisively ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II in the recorded compute workloads. Across the two shared tests, the W7800 secures both wins, with the largest margin appearing in the Vulkan API test. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7800 scores 175422 against 99621 for the Vega II, producing a delta of 76.1%. This is a substantial generational leap, more than three-quarters ahead of the older card in that specific workload. The OpenCL results tell a similar story, though the gap is narrower. The W7800 records 154366, while the Vega II manages 99048, a 55.8% advantage for the newer architecture. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests for the W7800 is 164894, compared to 109617 for the Vega II, which places the W7800 roughly 50% higher in overall compute throughput.

The percentile rankings reinforce this separation. The W7800 sits at the 97th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Vega II rests at the 94th percentile. While both are high performers, the W7800 occupies a tier above. The nearest rival data for each card provides additional context. For the W7800, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A5500, with an average score of 165217 and a delta of -0.2%, meaning the two are essentially tied. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation is also near, at 166094 with a -0.7% delta, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X sits 2.2% higher. This indicates the W7800 is competitive with the upper mid-range and high-end workstation offerings of its generation. For the Vega II, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO W7900, which scores 110725, a 1% advantage. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X trails by 2.1%, and the Vega II Duo is 2.7% behind. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile leads the Vega II by 3.8%. The Vega II's position among these rivals shows it holds its own against similar-era cards but is clearly outpaced by the newer W7800.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is wide, representing two distinct eras of AMD design. The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Vega II, in contrast, relies on the Vega 20 chip based on the older GCN 5.1 architecture, produced on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the process and design evolution. The W7800 packs 57,700 million transistors on a die size of 529 mm², yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The Vega II contains 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, for a density of 40.0M per mm². This is more than a fourfold increase in transistor density for the newer part, driven by the smaller process node and the fundamentally different architecture.

The compute resources differ in both count and type. The W7800 features 4480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, and 128 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 70 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature the Vega II lacks entirely. The Vega II offers 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and only 64 ROPs. The W7800's ROP count is double that of the Vega II, which directly impacts pixel fill rates. The theoretical rates confirm this: the W7800 achieves 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s, while the Vega II manages 110.1 GPixel/s and 440.3 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance is similarly lopsided. The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), whereas the Vega II produces 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 28.18 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). This is a 3.2x advantage in FP32 and a 3.2x advantage in FP16 for the W7800.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The W7800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Vega II also has 32 GB, but it is HBM2 on a vastly wider 4096-bit bus, yielding a higher bandwidth of 825.3 GB/s. Despite having less memory bandwidth, the W7800's higher compute throughput and modern cache hierarchy compensate in most workloads. The memory clock speeds reflect the different technologies: the W7800 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the Vega II runs at 806 MHz with 1612 Mbps effective. The W7800 also offers a more modern feature set. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega II is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer API support on the W7800 enables features like ray tracing and mesh shaders, which are unavailable on the Vega II.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164894, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II averages 109617. The W7800 outperforms the Vega II by approximately 50% in this aggregate metric.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The W7800 scores 175422 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 99621 for the Vega II. This represents a 76.1% advantage for the W7800, the largest margin across any shared benchmark.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The Vega II has a higher memory bandwidth of 825.3 GB/s due to its 4096-bit HBM2 interface, while the W7800 achieves 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 bus. The Vega II's bandwidth advantage is notable, but the W7800 compensates with higher compute throughput.

Q: Does the W7800 support ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the W7800 includes 70 dedicated ray tracing cores. The Vega II has no ray tracing cores listed in the database, meaning it lacks dedicated hardware for this workload.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The W7800 is fabricated on a 5 nm process, while the Vega II uses a 7 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the smaller node allows the W7800 to pack significantly more transistors into a similar die area.

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

A: The W7800 ranks at the 97th percentile, while the Vega II ranks at the 94th percentile. The W7800 is positioned higher in the overall performance distribution.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 5 nm for the W7800 versus 7 nm for the Vega II. Transistor count is 57,700 million for the W7800 versus 13,230 million for the Vega II. Die size is 529 mm² versus 331 mm². Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² versus 40.0M per mm². Base clock speed is 1895 MHz for the W7800 versus 1574 MHz for the Vega II. Boost clock is 2525 MHz versus 1720 MHz. Memory type is GDDR6 versus HBM2, with bus widths of 256 bit versus 4096 bit. Memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 825.3 GB/s. Shading units are 4480 versus 4096. TMUs are 280 versus 256. ROPs are 128 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are 70 versus none. Pixel rate is 323.2 GPixel/s versus 110.1 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 707.0 GTexel/s versus 440.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 45.25 TFLOPS versus 14.09 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 90.50 TFLOPS versus 28.18 TFLOPS. TDP is 260 W versus 475 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus quad-slot. The W7800 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Vega II has no listed power connectors. The suggested PSU is 600 W for the W7800 versus 850 W for the Vega II. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7800 versus Apple MPX for the Vega II. Display outputs are 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7800 versus 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt for the Vega II. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.3. The W7800's production status is Active, while the Vega II is End-of-life. The W7800 launched in 2023-04-12, while the Vega II launched in 2019-06-02. The W7800 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, and the Vega II has a launch MSRP of 2,199 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins in all recorded benchmark comparisons. Its advantages are most pronounced in Vulkan compute, where it leads by 76.1%. This suggests workloads that leverage Vulkan's modern API features, including ray tracing and compute shaders, will see substantial gains on the W7800. The OpenCL advantage of 55.8% indicates broad general-purpose compute superiority as well. The W7800's higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, combined with its dedicated ray tracing cores, make it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and AI inference tasks that rely on these capabilities. The newer DirectX 12 Ultimate support also enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing in DirectX applications, a feature entirely absent from the Vega II. The W7800's lower TDP of 260 W versus 475 W, along with its dual-slot design, makes it more manageable in terms of cooling and power delivery, despite the Vega II's higher memory bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II retains specific advantages that may matter in niche scenarios. Its memory bandwidth of 825.3 GB/s is significantly higher than the W7800's 576.0 GB/s. For workloads that are extremely bandwidth-bound, such as certain large dataset processing or high-resolution texture streaming, the Vega II's HBM2 memory could offer a performance edge, despite its older architecture. The Vega II also supports Apple MPX bus interface and Thunderbolt outputs, which are tailored for Mac Pro systems. Its 4x Thunderbolt display outputs provide a unique connectivity profile that the W7800 does not offer. The Vega II's 32 GB memory capacity matches the W7800, so memory capacity is not a differentiator. The Vega II's quad-slot design and 475 W TDP indicate it was designed for high-end workstations with ample space and power, but this also makes it less practical for compact builds. The Vega II's percentile ranking of 94 still places it among high-end GPUs, but the W7800's 97th percentile ranking shows it is in a higher performance class. For users with existing Mac Pro infrastructure, the Vega II's compatibility may be a deciding factor, but for raw compute performance in a modern context, the W7800 is the dominant option across every measured benchmark.