AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and AMD Radeon RX 5600M represent two distinct eras of AMD graphics technology, with the data showing a desktop flagship from 2017 facing off against a mobile part from 2020. The benchmark results reveal a clear split: the Vega 64 dominates in three of four tests, while the 5600M claims a surprising victory in one API-specific workload. The average benchmark scores place the Vega 64 at 50001, slightly ahead of the 5600M's 46601, a difference of roughly 7.3% overall. The Vega 64 also holds a marginally higher percentile rank at 86 compared to the 5600M's 85, indicating both sit near the same tier of overall GPU performance despite their generational gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 leads with an average benchmark score of 50001, while the AMD Radeon RX 5600M trails at 46601. This places the Vega 64 approximately 7.3% higher in aggregate performance across the tested workloads.

Q: How do the two compare in DirectX 12 gaming performance?

A: In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the Vega 64 scores 1669 against the 5600M's 1320, giving the Vega 64 a 26.4% advantage. This is the largest margin of victory for the desktop card among the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Is there any test where the RX 5600M outperforms the RX Vega 64?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Metal test, the RX 5600M scores 76653 versus the Vega 64's 68750, a 10.3% advantage for the mobile GPU. This is the only benchmark where the 5600M emerges victorious.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: The Vega 64's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti at 49957 (0.1% difference), followed by the Intel Arc A550M at 49737 (0.5%). For the 5600M, the Intel Arc A530M matches it at 46614 (0% delta), with the AMD Radeon RX 6550M close behind at 46702 (-0.2%).

Q: Which GPU shows stronger Vulkan performance?

A: The Vega 64 delivers a dominant 37.2% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 67032 compared to the 5600M's 48843. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards across all benchmarks.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare given the different process nodes?

A: The 5600M uses TSMC's 7 nm process with a density of 41.0M transistors per mm², while the Vega 64 uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process with 25.3M per mm². Despite its smaller 251 mm² die, the 5600M packs fewer total transistors at 10,300 million versus the Vega 64's 12,500 million on a 495 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The Vega 64 is built on GCN 5.0, codenamed Vega 10, representing the final evolution of AMD's Graphics Core Next design. In contrast, the 5600M uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 10 chip, marking AMD's shift to a new graphics architecture optimized for efficiency and gaming workloads. This architectural split explains many of the performance characteristics observed in the benchmarks.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The Vega 64 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the 5600M utilizes TSMC's 7 nm node. This process advantage allows the 5600M to achieve a transistor density of 41.0M per mm², substantially higher than the Vega 64's 25.3M per mm². However, the Vega 64 compensates with a much larger physical die at 495 mm² versus just 251 mm², housing 12,500 million transistors compared to 10,300 million.

Memory architecture represents another major divergence. The Vega 64 employs 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 5600M uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s. The Vega 64's HBM2 configuration provides roughly 68% more memory bandwidth, which proves critical in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Clock speeds also differ, with the Vega 64 boosting to 1546 MHz versus the 5600M's 1265 MHz boost, though the mobile part has a game clock of 1190 MHz not present on the desktop card.

The core configurations reflect their different positioning. The Vega 64 packs 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the 5600M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Vega 64's raw compute advantage shows in its 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus 5.829 TFLOPS for the 5600M. Notably, both support DirectX 12_1 and OpenGL 4.6, but the 5600M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 64 is limited to Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test establishes the clearest performance hierarchy. The Vega 64 scores 1669, beating the 5600M's 1320 by a substantial 26.4% margin. This DX12 workload rewards the Vega 64's higher shader count and memory bandwidth, demonstrating that raw compute resources still matter in modern gaming APIs. For context, this margin is comparable to the gap between the 5600M and its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A530M, which sits at 0% delta.

The Geekbench Metal test flips the script. Here, the 5600M achieves 76653, outpacing the Vega 64's 68750 by 10.3%. This result suggests that the RDNA architecture's efficiency improvements yield tangible benefits in Apple's Metal API, likely due to better instruction scheduling and reduced overhead per wavefront. It is worth remembering Metal performance does not necessarily translate to Windows gaming performance, but it does indicate architectural efficiency gains.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a narrower contest. The Vega 64 wins with 62552 versus 59589, a 5% advantage. This moderate lead reflects the compute-oriented nature of GCN architecture, which traditionally excels in general-purpose workloads. The 5600M's RDNA design trades some compute flexibility for gaming-focused optimizations, explaining the smaller gap compared to the DX12 test.

Geekbench Vulkan delivers the most lopsided result. The Vega 64 scores 67032, crushing the 5600M's 48843 by 37.2%. This massive delta highlights the Vega 64's superior raw throughput and bandwidth when the software stack aligns with its strengths. The 5600M's Vulkan score is also notably lower than its OpenCL result, suggesting driver maturity or architectural limitations in this API on the mobile part. Across all four tests, the Vega 64 wins three, with its average winning margin at 22.9%, while the 5600M's single victory comes at 10.3%.

Specification Differences

The most obvious divergence is form factor and power. The Vega 64 draws 295 W TDP with a dual-slot design requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The 5600M operates at 150 W TDP, uses an IGP form factor with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. This makes the 5600M fundamentally a laptop or compact device component, while the Vega 64 demands a full desktop power delivery system.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and type. The Vega 64 offers 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth and memory clocked at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). The 5600M provides 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth and memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The Vega 64's bandwidth advantage is substantial, but the 5600M's GDDR6 runs at a higher effective speed per pin.

Clock specifications show different profiles. The Vega 64 has a base clock of 1247 MHz and boost of 1546 MHz, while the 5600M has a lower base of 1035 MHz and boost of 1265 MHz, but adds a game clock of 1190 MHz. The Vega 64's higher clocks contribute to its dominance in compute-heavy workloads. Pixel and texture rates also favor the Vega 64, with 98.94 GPixel/s and 395.8 GTexel/s versus 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s respectively.

Interface and output capabilities differ. The Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 with 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16 but has portable-device-dependent display outputs, reflecting its mobile nature. Physical dimensions are only specified for the Vega 64 at 280 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width. The 5600M has no listed dimensions, as it integrates into laptops. Release dates show the Vega 64 arriving in August 2017 with a launch MSRP of 499 USD, while the 5600M launched in July 2020 with no MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Vega 64 wins decisively in scenarios demanding raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 483.8 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger choice for DX12 gaming at high resolutions, Vulkan-based titles, and OpenCL compute workloads. The 37.2% Vulkan advantage is particularly pronounced, suggesting the Vega 64 excels in applications leveraging explicit multi-threaded rendering or GPU compute. Its 64 ROPs and higher pixel rate of 98.94 GPixel/s also position it well for traditional rasterization at high framerates.

The 5600M wins in efficiency-oriented scenarios and Metal-specific environments. Its 10.3% Metal benchmark victory indicates that applications optimized for Apple's graphics stack will perform better on this architecture. The lower 150 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power constraints dominate. Its RDNA architecture with 7 nm process delivers better performance per watt, even if absolute performance is lower. The 5600M also supports PCIe 4.0, offering double the bandwidth of the Vega 64's PCIe 3.0 interface for data transfer to the CPU.

For gaming in Windows environments, the Vega 64's 26.4% DX12 lead suggests it remains the more capable gaming GPU despite its age. However, the 5600M's 5% OpenCL deficit is modest, meaning productivity tasks that rely on OpenCL may see similar performance. The 5600M's 6 GB VRAM capacity may also be more limiting than the Vega 64's 8 GB in modern titles with high texture requirements.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy: the Vega 64 outperforms the 5600M in three of four benchmarks, with an average score advantage of 3400 points (50001 vs 46601). Its wins in DX12 (26.4%), Vulkan (37.2%), and OpenCL (5%) demonstrate broad superiority across major graphics APIs. The only exception is Metal, where the 5600M leads by 10.3%, likely reflecting architectural efficiency gains in RDNA.

For desktop users prioritizing gaming and compute performance, the Vega 64 is the unambiguous choice from this data. Its higher shading unit count, greater memory bandwidth, and higher clock speeds translate directly into benchmark success. The 295 W TDP and 2x 8-pin power requirement are acceptable trade-offs for the performance gains, especially given its 86th percentile ranking among all GPUs.

For mobile users or those building power-constrained systems, the 5600M offers a compelling efficiency story. Its 150 W TDP, IGP form factor, and Metal benchmark victory make it suitable for laptops where battery life and thermals matter. The 85th percentile ranking shows it sits only one percentile behind the Vega 64 in overall standing, indicating that its architectural efficiency nearly compensates for lower raw specifications. The 5600M also brings Vulkan 1.4 support and PCIe 4.0, future-proofing features absent from the older Vega 64.

The verdict splits along use-case lines. The Vega 64 wins for desktop gaming, Vulkan-based applications, and compute-heavy workloads. The 5600M wins for Metal-centric environments, mobile deployments, and scenarios where power efficiency outweighs raw performance. Neither card dominates universally, but the Vega 64's three-to-one benchmark victory and higher average score make it the stronger overall performer in the data presented.