
Radeon Pro Vega 16
Popular choices:

Radeon R9 370
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, raw graphics performance, VRAM, feature set, power efficiency, pricing context, and long-term value so you can see which GPU actually makes more sense.
Radeon Pro Vega 16
2018Why buy it
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 110W, a 35W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 31.7 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Radeon R9 370
2015Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 31.7 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 16: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌46.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 75W.
Radeon Pro Vega 16
2018Radeon R9 370
2015Why buy it
- ✅Draws 75W instead of 110W, a 35W reduction.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Why buy it
- ✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 31.7 vs 0 G3D/$ ($149 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs Unknown).
- ✅Less risky long-term buy than Radeon Pro Vega 16: it remains the more sensible modern option while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is already obsolete for modern gaming.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2018-era hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 31.7 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $149 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Very weak future-proofing: 2015-era hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already obsolete for modern gaming and is hard to recommend today.
- ❌46.7% higher power demand at 110W vs 75W.
Quick Answers
So, is Radeon Pro Vega 16 better than Radeon R9 370?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper card?
When does Radeon R9 370 make more sense than Radeon Pro Vega 16?
Games Benchmarks
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 9800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 79 FPS | 100 FPS |
| medium | 68 FPS | 85 FPS |
| high | 55 FPS | 68 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 40 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 70 FPS | 87 FPS |
| medium | 60 FPS | 75 FPS |
| high | 43 FPS | 53 FPS |
| ultra | 28 FPS | 30 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 25 FPS | 27 FPS |
| medium | 23 FPS | 26 FPS |
| high | 15 FPS | 17 FPS |
| ultra | 13 FPS | 15 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 111 FPS | 118 FPS |
| medium | 82 FPS | 87 FPS |
| high | 63 FPS | 67 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 41 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 63 FPS | 67 FPS |
| medium | 43 FPS | 45 FPS |
| high | 31 FPS | 33 FPS |
| ultra | 21 FPS | 22 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 24 FPS | 24 FPS |
| medium | 16 FPS | 16 FPS |
| high | 13 FPS | 13 FPS |
| ultra | 9 FPS | 9 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 216 FPS | 212 FPS |
| medium | 173 FPS | 170 FPS |
| high | 144 FPS | 142 FPS |
| ultra | 108 FPS | 106 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 162 FPS | 159 FPS |
| medium | 130 FPS | 127 FPS |
| high | 108 FPS | 106 FPS |
| ultra | 81 FPS | 80 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 108 FPS | 106 FPS |
| medium | 87 FPS | 85 FPS |
| high | 72 FPS | 71 FPS |
| ultra | 53 FPS | 53 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 140 FPS | 136 FPS |
| medium | 111 FPS | 109 FPS |
| high | 92 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 74 FPS | 78 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 101 FPS | 99 FPS |
| medium | 81 FPS | 82 FPS |
| high | 68 FPS | 71 FPS |
| ultra | 53 FPS | 55 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 60 FPS | 59 FPS |
| medium | 46 FPS | 45 FPS |
| high | 36 FPS | 35 FPS |
| ultra | 25 FPS | 25 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon Pro Vega 16 and Radeon R9 370

Radeon Pro Vega 16
Radeon Pro Vega 16
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 14 2018. It features the GCN 5.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 815 MHz to 1190 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,809 points.

Radeon R9 370
Radeon R9 370
The Radeon R9 370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 5 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 925 MHz to 975 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 110W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,722 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 scores 4,809 and the Radeon R9 370 reaches 4,722 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is built on GCN 5.0 while the Radeon R9 370 uses GCN 1.0, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 1,280 (Radeon R9 370). Raw compute: 2.437 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 2.496 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 370). Boost clocks: 1190 MHz vs 975 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,809+2% | 4,722 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1024 | 1280+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.437 TFLOPS | 2.496 TFLOPS+2% |
| Boost Clock | 1190 MHz+22% | 975 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 80+25% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 384 KB+50% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
| Frame Generation | FSR upscaling | FSR upscaling |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 370 has 4 GB. The Radeon R9 370 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon R9 370) — the Radeon Pro Vega 16 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared System RAM | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 256-bit+300% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon R9 370). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 3.
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.3+8% | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 4+33% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 4.0 (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R9 370). Decoder: UVD 7.0 vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,MVC (Radeon R9 370).
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 4.0 | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | UVD 7.0 | UVD 4.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265 | H.264,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,VC-1,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 370's 110W — a 37.8% difference. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 450W (Radeon R9 370). Power connectors: Integrated vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 0mm vs 221mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80 vs 75.
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W-32% | 110W |
| Recommended PSU | 1W-100% | 450W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 0mm | 221mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80 | 75-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 64.1+49% | 42.9 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 launched at $0 MSRP, while the Radeon R9 370 launched at $149. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 costs 100+% less ($149 savings) on MSRP. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): Infinity (Radeon Pro Vega 16) vs 31.7 (Radeon R9 370) — the Radeon Pro Vega 16 offers Infinity% better value. The Radeon Pro Vega 16 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon Pro Vega 16 | Radeon R9 370 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $149 |
| Performance per Dollar | Infinity | 31.7 |
| Codename | Vega 12 | Trinidad |
| Release | November 14 2018 | May 5 2015 |
| Ranking | #451 | #456 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












