AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT vs AMD Radeon Vega 11 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Vega 11 and the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT represent two vastly different points in AMD's GPU timeline, separated by six years and a complete architectural overhaul. The data from the benchmark database shows a clear hierarchy, but the details of each GPU's performance profile reveal a more nuanced story than simply "newer is better." The Vega 11 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) from the Picasso generation, while the RX 9070 XT is a discrete, high-end add-in board from the Radeon RX 9000 series. Their benchmark scores and specifications illustrate a generational leap in compute capability, memory bandwidth, and feature support, yet the Vega 11 still holds relevance in its specific, low-power niche.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is limited to two shared benchmark tests, and the results are lopsided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 9070 XT scores 17,428, while the Vega 11 scores 13,392. This represents a 23.2% performance advantage for the newer card. This is a significant margin, but it is notably the raw score difference (4,036 points) is modest compared to the gulf in their theoretical compute capabilities. The Vega 11’s FP32 performance is rated at 1.971 TFLOPS, whereas the RX 9070 XT delivers 48.66 TFLOPS—a massive 24x difference. The fact that the OpenCL benchmark shows only a 23.2% gap suggests that the test is likely not fully utilizing the RX 9070 XT's raw hardware, possibly due to driver overhead or the test's workload not being heavily parallel.

The second shared test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a far more dramatic separation. The RX 9070 XT achieves a score of 65,879, which is 81.4% higher than the Vega 11's 12,273. This is a colossal margin and highlights the efficiency of the RDNA 4.0 architecture in a modern graphics API. The Vulkan test likely stresses the GPU's geometry processing, texture units, and memory subsystem more effectively than OpenCL. The RX 9070 XT's 256 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 128 render output units (ROPs) dwarf the Vega 11's 44 TMUs and 8 ROPs, explaining why the newer architecture excels in a graphics-centric workload. The data shows that while the RX 9070 XT is a clear winner in both tests, the magnitude of its victory varies wildly depending on the API and workload.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is the unequivocal winner in every head-to-head comparison available. It wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, giving it a 2-0 win record in the database. Its performance in the Vulkan test is particularly dominant, indicating that it is exceptionally well-suited for modern gaming and graphics workloads that leverage this API. The RX 9070 XT’s additional benchmarks, such as its Passmark G3D score of 26,795 and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 7,260, further solidify its position as a high-performance part, though these tests lack a direct Vega 11 comparison.

The AMD Radeon Vega 11, conversely, does not have a single benchmark win against the RX 9070 XT. Its wins are contextual and relate to its physical and power characteristics rather than raw performance. As an IGP with a 15 W TDP, it is designed for low-power, compact systems where a discrete GPU is not an option. Its performance, while far below the RX 9070 XT, is still respectable for an integrated part, sitting at the 56th percentile of all GPUs. In contrast, the RX 9070 XT's percentile ranking is slightly lower at 55, which is a statistical anomaly given its massive performance advantage in the head-to-head tests. This discrepancy is likely due to the different benchmark suites used to calculate each GPU's average score, with the RX 9070 XT's average being dragged down by its low Passmark DirectX scores, which are not representative of its overall capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT is decisively faster, scoring 65,879 compared to the Vega 11's 12,273. This equates to an 81.4% performance lead for the RX 9070 XT.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT compare to the Vega 11 in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The RX 9070 XT scores 17,428 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 23.2% higher than the Vega 11's 13,392. This shows a solid, but not overwhelming, lead for the newer card in this specific compute test.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Vega 11 has a TDP of 15 W, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled systems. The RX 9070 XT, in contrast, has a TDP of 304 W and requires dual 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W power supply.

Q: Do these GPUs share any architectural features?

A: No. The Vega 11 is based on the older GCN 5.0 architecture, while the RX 9070 XT uses the modern RDNA 4.0 architecture. The RX 9070 XT also includes dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Vega 11.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 9070 XT has a dedicated 16 GB GDDR6 memory interface with a 256-bit bus, providing 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 11 uses system shared memory, and its bandwidth is dependent on the system's RAM configuration.

Q: Is the Vega 11 a good choice for a modern gaming PC?

A: While the Vega 11's benchmark scores are respectable for an IGP, its performance is far below the RX 9070 XT. For demanding modern games, the RX 9070 XT's superior Vulkan performance and dedicated ray tracing hardware make it the only viable option of the two.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs read like they are from different product categories, which they are. The most fundamental difference is in the memory subsystem. The Vega 11 uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM and relies on the system's main RAM, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The RX 9070 XT, on the other hand, comes with 16 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 644.6 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical difference, as the RX 9070 XT's dedicated memory eliminates the performance bottleneck of sharing bandwidth with the CPU.

Clock speeds also differ drastically. The Vega 11 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1400 MHz. The RX 9070 XT starts at 1660 MHz base, boosts to 2970 MHz, and has a listed game clock of 2400 MHz. This higher operating frequency, combined with the vastly different architecture, accounts for the performance gap. The physical specifications are equally divergent: the Vega 11 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP and no power connectors, while the RX 9070 XT is a dual-slot card with a 304 W TDP, two 8-pin power connectors, and a recommended 700 W PSU. The bus interface also differs, with the Vega 11 using an integrated IGP connection and the RX 9070 XT using a PCIe 5.0 x16 slot.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two parts is the primary driver of their performance disparity. The Vega 11 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It features 704 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The chip, codenamed Picasso, has 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Crucially, it has no dedicated ray tracing cores.

The RX 9070 XT is a completely different beast. It uses the RDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Navi 48 chip contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, a 10x increase in transistor count. This allows for 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, along with 64 dedicated ray tracing cores. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, the latter being a newer standard. The FP32 compute capability is rated at 48.66 TFLOPS, a massive leap from the Vega 11's 1.971 TFLOPS. Furthermore, the RX 9070 XT's FP16 performance is 1:1 with FP32, while the Vega 11's is 2:1, indicating a different compute path in the newer architecture. The RX 9070 XT also has a significantly higher transistor density (151.0M / mm²) compared to the Vega 11 (23.5M / mm²), showcasing the efficiency of the 4 nm process.