AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs AMD Radeon Vega 3 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmarks show a clear split between these two integrated graphics processors. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins both head-to-head comparisons, taking 2 wins to 0 for the AMD Radeon Vega 3. The largest margin appears in the Vulkan test, where the R7 Graphics scores 5980 against 3961 for the Vega 3, a 51% advantage. That is a substantial gap in a cross-platform graphics API workload.

In OpenCL, the difference narrows considerably. The R7 Graphics posts 4015, while the Vega 3 manages 3963, a 1.3% edge for the older part. This near-tie suggests that raw compute workloads do not favor either chip strongly, but the Vulkan result indicates a meaningful architectural advantage for the R7 Graphics in that specific API path.

The Vega 3 does have one additional recorded benchmark that the R7 Graphics lacks: a Metal score of 4880. Since the R7 Graphics has no Metal result in the database, direct comparison on that API is not possible. However, the Vega 3's Metal score sits above its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, which hints that its performance varies notably depending on the API used.

Looking at broader percentile rankings, the R7 Graphics sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs, while the Vega 3 sits at the 25th percentile. The average benchmark score confirms the gap: 4998 for the R7 Graphics versus 4268 for the Vega 3. That is a 17.1% difference in aggregate performance, driven almost entirely by the Vulkan blowout.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's graphics core architecture. The R7 Graphics uses GCN 2.0, built on the Spectre Lite chip, while the Vega 3 uses GCN 5.0, built on the Picasso chip. The process nodes differ as well: the R7 Graphics is fabricated on a 28 nm process, whereas the Vega 3 uses a 12 nm process. Both are manufactured by GlobalFoundries.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell a nuanced story. The Vega 3's Picasso chip contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, giving a density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The R7 Graphics' Spectre Lite chip contains 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, with a density of 9.8 million per square millimeter. So the newer chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, but the older chip has a larger physical die overall.

The shading resources differ sharply. The R7 Graphics has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The Vega 3 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. That is exactly half the shading units, half the TMUs, and half the ROPs. Despite this, the Vega 3 does have a clock speed advantage: its base clock is 300 MHz and boost clock is 1100 MHz, while the R7 Graphics has no recorded base or boost clock in the database.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the resource split. The R7 Graphics reaches 5.760 GPixel/s and 17.28 GTexel/s, while the Vega 3 manages 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also favors the R7 Graphics at 553.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the Vega 3 supports FP16 at 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the R7 Graphics lacks entirely.

API support differs on the DirectX and Vulkan fronts. The R7 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The TDP also differs: 25 W for the R7 Graphics versus 15 W for the Vega 3, making the newer part more power-efficient on paper.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most workloads. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is the stronger performer in the two tests where both parts have recorded scores. Its Vulkan advantage of 51% is decisive, and even the OpenCL result, though close, goes in its favor. The average benchmark score of 4998 versus 4268 reinforces this, a 17.1% gap.

However, the Vega 3 is not without merit. It draws less power at 15 W versus 25 W, uses a smaller die at 210 mm² versus 245 mm², and packs more transistors at 4,940 million versus 2,410 million. It also supports newer API versions: DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3. For users prioritizing API currency or power efficiency, the Vega 3 holds an edge.

The R7 Graphics, despite being older (released in 2014 versus 2019 for the Vega 3), wins on raw performance metrics. Its higher shading unit count, higher pixel and texture rates, and higher FP32 throughput all contribute to the benchmark results. The percentile ranking also favors it: 29th versus 25th.

For gaming or compute tasks that rely on Vulkan, the R7 Graphics is clearly the better choice based on the recorded data. For OpenCL, the choice is nearly immaterial, a 1.3% difference. For users who need the latest API feature levels or lower power draw, the Vega 3 offers qualitative advantages, but the benchmark scores do not show it winning any head-to-head test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins with a score of 5980 versus 3961 for the AMD Radeon Vega 3, a 51% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Vega 3 beats the R7 Graphics?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (OpenCL and Vulkan), the R7 Graphics wins both. The Vega 3 does have a Metal score of 4880, but the R7 Graphics has no Metal result for comparison.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The R7 Graphics has 384 shading units, while the Vega 3 has 192. The R7 Graphics also has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, versus 12 TMUs and 4 ROPs for the Vega 3.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The R7 Graphics has a TDP of 25 W, while the Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the R7 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

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

A: The R7 Graphics has an average benchmark score of 4998, placing it at the 29th percentile. The Vega 3 has an average score of 4268, placing it at the 25th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL result is the closer of the two comparisons. The R7 Graphics scores 4015, the Vega 3 scores 3963, a difference of just 52 points or 1.3%. This falls well within the range of run-to-run variance one might expect from integrated graphics sharing system memory. For OpenCL compute tasks, users should not expect a meaningful performance difference between the two.

The Vulkan result is where the gap becomes dramatic. The R7 Graphics scores 5980, while the Vega 3 scores 3961. That is a 2019-point difference, translating to a 51% lead for the R7 Graphics. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a dominant one. The R7 Graphics' Vulkan score is also its higher of the two benchmarks, while the Vega 3's Vulkan score is its lowest. This suggests the R7 Graphics has a particularly strong Vulkan implementation, or that the Vega 3's Vulkan driver path is comparatively weak.

Notably, the Vega 3's Metal score of 4880 is higher than both its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. If Metal were a head-to-head test, it is plausible the Vega 3 would win, but the database does not include a Metal result for the R7 Graphics. The absence of that data point means the overall comparison remains incomplete, but based on what is recorded, the R7 Graphics holds a 2-0 record.

The average benchmark scores contextualize these results further. The R7 Graphics averages 4998 across its two tests, while the Vega 3 averages 4268 across its three tests. Even including the Vega 3's relatively strong Metal score, its average trails by 730 points. Removing the Metal score, the Vega 3's average would be 3962, which is nearly identical to its Vulkan score, underscoring how much the R7 Graphics' Vulkan performance drives the overall gap.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is a clear generational split: 28 nm for the R7 Graphics versus 12 nm for the Vega 3. Transistor counts differ by more than double: 2,410 million versus 4,940 million. Die size goes the other direction, with the R7 Graphics at 245 mm² and the Vega 3 at 210 mm². Transistor density reflects this: 9.8M per mm² versus 23.5M per mm².

Compute resources are halved on the Vega 3. Shading units drop from 384 to 192, TMUs from 24 to 12, and ROPs from 8 to 4. Pixel rate falls from 5.760 GPixel/s to 4.400 GPixel/s. Texture rate falls from 17.28 GTexel/s to 13.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute falls from 553.0 GFLOPS to 422.4 GFLOPS. The Vega 3 adds FP16 support at 844.8 GFLOPS, which the R7 Graphics does not have.

Clock behavior differs in what the database records. The Vega 3 has explicit base and boost clocks of 300 MHz and 1100 MHz. The R7 Graphics has no recorded base or boost clock values. Memory configuration is identical in type, both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, but the Vega 3's boost clock suggests it can access that memory at a faster rate in practice.

API support differs on DirectX and Vulkan versions. The R7 Graphics supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. TDP differs by 10 W, with the R7 Graphics at 25 W and the Vega 3 at 15 W. The Vega 3 has no power connectors listed, while the R7 Graphics has none listed either, but the Vega 3 explicitly states "None" for that field.

Release dates are five years apart: the R7 Graphics launched in 2014, the Vega 3 in 2019. Both are end-of-life products. The R7 Graphics' predecessor is TeraScale 3 IGP and its successor is GCN 3.0 IGP. The Vega 3's predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is Vega II IGP. Both are IGP parts with motherboard-dependent display outputs. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.