AMD Radeon RX 480 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent advantage for the AMD Radeon RX 480 across the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 scores 37,998 against 27,125 for the RX Vega M GH, a lead of 40.1%. The margin is even wider in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 480 posts 45,968 versus 31,268, a 47% advantage. Both results place the RX 480 firmly ahead in raw compute throughput, with the gap driven by its larger shader count and higher clock speeds.

The RX 480's average benchmark score of 33,997 sits in the 78th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX Vega M GH's average of 29,197 lands in the 74th percentile. That 4-percentile gap reflects the consistent performance separation between the two. The RX 480's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB at 34,154 (0.5% above) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT at 34,133 (0.4% above), while the RX Vega M GH sits close to the AMD FirePro W8000 at 29,211 (effectively tied) and the Intel Arc A370M at 29,175 (0.1% behind). These reference points confirm that the RX 480 competes in a higher performance tier, while the Vega M GH slots into a more modest segment.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 4.0 architecture and are built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but the internal designs diverge substantially. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm². The RX Vega M GH uses the Polaris 22 chip, which packs 5,000 million transistors onto a 208 mm² die, yielding a slightly lower density of 24.0 million per mm². The RX 480's larger chip budget translates directly into more execution resources: 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX Vega M GH halves the shader count to 1,536, drops to 96 TMUs, yet doubles ROPs to 64.

Clock speeds also favor the RX 480. Its base clock runs at 1120 MHz with a boost of 1266 MHz, while the Vega M GH operates at 1063 MHz base and 1190 MHz boost. Memory subsystems take opposite approaches. The RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 across a 1024-bit bus, achieving 204.8 GB/s at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). The HBM2 design gives the Vega M GH a much wider interface, but the RX 480's higher effective memory clock and larger capacity still win on raw bandwidth.

The resulting throughput figures show the trade-offs. The RX 480 achieves 5.834 TFLOPS FP32, 182.3 GTexel/s texture fill, and 40.51 GPixel/s pixel fill. The Vega M GH produces 3.656 TFLOPS FP32, 114.2 GTexel/s, and 76.16 GPixel/s. The Vega M GH's 64 ROPs give it a pixel fill advantage of nearly 88%, but the RX 480 leads by 60% in texture rate and by 59% in FP32 compute. This is a classic split between compute-heavy workloads and rasterization-heavy workloads.

Power and physical design differ as well. The RX 480 carries a 150 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler with a single 6-pin power connector, and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. It measures 240 mm in length, 95 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The Vega M GH is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 100 W TDP, no discrete power connectors, no suggested PSU rating, and no published dimensions. Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its design for mobile or compact systems rather than standalone graphics cards. Both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so API compatibility is identical.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 wins decisively in compute-bound applications. Its 40.1% lead in OpenCL and 47% lead in Vulkan indicate strong performance for GPGPU tasks such as rendering, video encoding, and machine learning inference. The higher shader count, faster clocks, and greater memory bandwidth all contribute to this advantage. The RX 480 also holds an edge in texture-heavy workloads, with a 60% higher texture fill rate, making it better suited for games that rely on detailed surface mapping and high-resolution textures.

The Vega M GH's sole advantage lies in pixel throughput. Its 64 ROPs deliver 76.16 GPixel/s, nearly double the RX 480's 40.51 GPixel/s. This makes it theoretically stronger for fill-rate-limited scenarios such as high-resolution framebuffer operations or simple geometry rendering at high resolutions. However, no benchmark in the recorded data isolates pixel throughput as a separate test, and the Vega M GH loses both shared benchmarks by wide margins. In practice, the lower shader count and reduced texture rate likely bottleneck any pixel-fill advantage in real workloads.

For gaming, the RX 480 is the clear choice. Its Vulkan score advantage of 47% suggests significantly better performance in modern APIs that expose low-level hardware control. The larger 8 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for high-resolution textures and larger assets. The Vega M GH's 4 GB HBM2 allocation, while fast, limits its capacity for demanding titles. For compact or portable systems where power draw and physical footprint matter, the Vega M GH's 100 W TDP and IGP form factor offer advantages, but the recorded benchmarks do not reflect any performance benefit from that design.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 480 in OpenCL workloads?

A: The RX 480 scores 37,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 40.1% higher than the RX Vega M GH's 27,125.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance between the two GPUs?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 480 achieves 45,968 compared to 31,268 for the RX Vega M GH, a lead of 47%.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and how does that affect performance?

A: The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units versus 1,536 for the RX Vega M GH. This 50% difference in shader count directly contributes to the RX 480's higher FP32 throughput of 5.834 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the RX Vega M GH have any advantage in memory technology?

A: Yes, it uses HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus, which is a wider interface than the RX 480's 256-bit GDDR5 setup. However, the RX 480 still achieves higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate comparison?

A: The RX Vega M GH has a higher pixel fill rate at 76.16 GPixel/s due to its 64 ROPs, while the RX 480 delivers 40.51 GPixel/s from its 32 ROPs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The RX 480 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU with a single 6-pin connector. The RX Vega M GH has a 100 W TDP and is an integrated processor with no separate power connector requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 480 | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH |

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

| Chip | Ellesmere | Polaris 22 |

| Generation | Arctic Islands (RX 400) | Vega (Vega M) |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 24.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1120 MHz | 1063 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1266 MHz | 1190 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 144 | 96 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 40.51 GPixel/s | 76.16 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.3 GTexel/s | 114.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.834 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 240 mm x 95 mm x 35 mm | Not published |

| Release Date | 2016-06-28 | 2018-01-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 229 USD | Not available |