AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs AMD Radeon Vega 8 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Radeon RX 6500M and the AMD Radeon Vega 8, with the discrete mobile GPU winning both direct comparison tests by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500M scores 38,586 against 8,822 for the Vega 8, a 337.4% advantage. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the RX 6500M reaches 43,837 points while the Vega 8 manages 8,134, a 438.9% lead. These are not marginal differences; they represent entirely different performance tiers.

The RX 6500M also holds a higher average benchmark score of 10,362 across all recorded tests, compared to 9,221 for the Vega 8. That places the RX 6500M at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Vega 8 sits at the 45th percentile. Interestingly, the RX 6500M's closest rivals are older discrete parts: the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 trails by just 0.4%, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is 1.1% behind, and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X is 2.1% behind. The Vega 8, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Radeon 890M (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (0.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (0.8% behind). The data indicates that even the Vega 8's nearest competitors are substantially below the RX 6500M's performance class.

The RX 6500M's individual benchmark results reveal its strengths and weaknesses. It scores 7,531 in Passmark G3D, 2,669 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 385 in Passmark G2D. DirectX-specific tests show 92 in DirectX 9, 70 in DirectX 11, 52 in DirectX 10, and 34 in DirectX 12. The Vega 8 has no comparable Passmark entries in the database, so the comparison rests primarily on the Geekbench results, which are unambiguous.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The RX 6500M is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 8 uses GCN 5.0 architecture with the Raven chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process difference is significant: the RX 6500M packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The Vega 8 contains 4,940 million transistors across a much larger 210 mm² die, for a density of just 23.5 million per square millimeter.

Core configurations differ substantially. The RX 6500M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Vega 8. The Vega 8 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Clock speeds reinforce the gap: the RX 6500M runs at a base of 2000 MHz, boosts to 2400 MHz, and has a game clock of 2191 MHz. The Vega 8 starts at just 300 MHz and boosts to 1100 MHz.

Memory architecture is another dividing line. The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64 bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth and running at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The Vega 8 relies on system shared memory, with its bus width, type, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. That means the Vega 8's memory performance varies with the host system, whereas the RX 6500M has dedicated, consistent bandwidth.

Compute output follows the same pattern. The RX 6500M delivers 4.915 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 9.830 TFLOPS of FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio). The Vega 8 manages 1,126.4 GFLOPS of FP32 and 2.253 TFLOPS of FP16. Pixel and texture rates also favor the RX 6500M: 76.80 GPixel/s and 153.6 GTexel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s and 35.20 GTexel/s for the Vega 8.

Feature support differs as well. The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 8 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface; the Vega 8 is an integrated GPU with no separate bus interface. Power draw also separates them: the RX 6500M is rated at 50 W TDP, the Vega 8 at 25 W.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the faster GPU in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, with leads of 337.4% in OpenCL and 438.9% in Vulkan. Its higher average score, superior percentile ranking, and dedicated memory all point to a discrete-class solution that outclasses the integrated Vega 8 by a wide margin. The RX 6500M also brings ray tracing hardware, newer architecture, and a more advanced feature set. Anyone choosing between these two for gaming or compute workloads should select the RX 6500M based on the recorded data.

The Vega 8 is not without context, however. It consumes half the power of the RX 6500M, integrates directly into the motherboard, and relies on system memory, which makes it suitable for light, power-sensitive systems. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the AMD Radeon 890M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960, show that it competes in a lower performance tier. But for raw performance, the RX 6500M wins every comparison.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6500M in OpenCL?

A: The RX 6500M scores 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 337.4% higher than the Vega 8's 8,822.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing support?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500M includes 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64 bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 8 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 6500M has an average benchmark score of 10,362, placing it at the 48th percentile. The Vega 8 has an average of 9,221, at the 45th percentile.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The RX 6500M is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the Vega 8 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Vega 8 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M wins in all recorded direct comparisons. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are multiples of the Vega 8's results, and its average benchmark score is higher. It also wins on architecture, with RDNA 2.0 versus GCN 5.0, a smaller and denser 6 nm process versus 14 nm, dedicated GDDR6 memory versus system shared memory, and ray tracing cores that the Vega 8 lacks. The RX 6500M also produces substantially higher pixel rates, texture rates, and FP32 throughput.

The Vega 8's advantages are limited to power consumption and integration. It has a 25 W TDP versus 50 W for the RX 6500M, and it requires no separate power connectors or PCIe slot. Its display outputs are motherboard dependent, which suits compact or low-power builds. It also has a lower clock range, but that translates to lower energy use. For systems where power efficiency and simplicity matter more than performance, the Vega 8 has a role.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The RX 6500M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 24 chip, while the Vega 8 uses GCN 5.0 with a Raven chip. Process nodes are 6 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm (GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts are 5,400 million versus 4,940 million, and die sizes are 107 mm² versus 210 mm², giving transistor densities of 50.5M per mm² versus 23.5M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge sharply: the RX 6500M has a base clock of 2000 MHz, boost of 2400 MHz, and game clock of 2191 MHz. The Vega 8 has a base of 300 MHz and boost of 1100 MHz. Memory differs completely: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth versus system shared memory. Shading units are 1,024 versus 512, TMUs are 64 versus 32, and ROPs are 32 versus 8. The RX 6500M has 16 ray tracing cores; the Vega 8 has none.

Pixel rates are 76.80 GPixel/s versus 8.800 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 153.6 GTexel/s versus 35.20 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.915 TFLOPS versus 1,126.4 GFLOPS. FP16 performance is 9.830 TFLOPS versus 2.253 TFLOPS. TDP is 50 W versus 25 W. The RX 6500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface; the Vega 8 is an IGP. DirectX support is 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1), and Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.3. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP recorded.