AMD Instinct MI100 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The AMD Instinct MI100 scores 139,035 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 78,467 points. That is a delta of 77.2% in favor of the Instinct MI100, meaning the MI100 delivers nearly 1.77 times the OpenCL compute performance of the Vega 64X.

To put that gap in context, the MI100 sits at the 96th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB, scores 138,063, which is only 0.7% behind. The Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB is 0.9% behind at 137,731. The MI100 also leads the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, 1.9% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, 2.4% behind). So the MI100 is not just ahead of the Vega 64X; it is at the top of a very competitive cluster of high-end accelerators, with only fractional percentage points separating it from its closest peers.

The Vega 64X, by contrast, sits at the 92nd percentile, which is still high overall, but its OpenCL score of 78,467 places it just above the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995, which is 1.3% ahead of the Vega 64X) and just below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842, 1.4% behind the Vega 64X). The NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants are close too: the PCIe 16 GB version scores 79,605 (1.7% behind the Vega 64X) and the PCIe 12 GB version scores 79,396 (2% behind). In other words, the Vega 64X is competitive with that mid-range group, but it is in an entirely different performance tier from the MI100.

The database records one win for the MI100 and zero for the Vega 64X in head-to-head testing. There is no benchmark in which the Vega 64X beats the MI100. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the MI100 averages 139,035, while the Vega 64X averages 80,959. That is a 71.7% difference in average score, though the only common test is OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two AMD GPUs is substantial, reflecting a generational shift in design philosophy. The MI100 uses the Arcturus chip built on CDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Vega 64X uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The node shrink is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm means the MI100 packs transistors roughly twice as densely.

The transistor counts reflect that density. The MI100 contains 25,600 million transistors on a die size of 750 mm², yielding a transistor density of 34.1 million per mm². The Vega 64X contains 12,500 million transistors on a die size of 495 mm², yielding a density of 25.3 million per mm². So the MI100 has more than double the transistor count, and its density advantage of about 34.8% shows the efficiency of the newer process.

The compute resources are also vastly different. The MI100 has 7,680 shading units, 480 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The Vega 64X has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That means the MI100 has 87.5% more shading units and 87.5% more TMUs, while the ROP count is identical at 64.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The MI100 features 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 64X has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. That is a 2.4x bandwidth advantage for the MI100, directly tied to its doubled bus width and doubled memory capacity.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The Vega 64X has a higher base clock at 1250 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI100, but the boost clocks are close: 1468 MHz for the Vega 64X versus 1502 MHz for the MI100. The MI100 actually boosts slightly higher despite starting lower. Memory clocks differ too: the MI100 runs at 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), while the Vega 64X runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

The API support is a notable difference. The MI100 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, meaning it has no consumer graphics API support. The Vega 64X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. This is consistent with the MI100 being a pure compute accelerator with no display outputs, while the Vega 64X is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for portable devices.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear specialization. The MI100 is a compute-first accelerator. Its 23.07 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 46.14 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1) performance, combined with 1.23 TB/s of memory bandwidth and 32 GB of HBM2, make it suited for large-scale scientific computing, AI training, and data center workloads. Its lack of display outputs and N/A API support confirm that it is not meant for graphics rendering. The 96th percentile ranking among all GPUs reinforces its position as a top-tier compute device.

The Vega 64X, despite scoring far lower in OpenCL, is a more versatile part. It is an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs, meaning it is designed to drive displays in mobile or all-in-one systems. It supports DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so it can handle graphics workloads and compute tasks. Its 12.03 TFLOPS of FP32 and 24.05 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1) are roughly half the MI100's numbers, but they are still respectable for a 250 W integrated part.

The benchmark results reflect this split. In OpenCL compute, the MI100 wins by 77.2%. But the Vega 64X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 83,450, which the MI100 does not have. That suggests the Vega 64X can leverage Apple's Metal API for graphics and compute on supported systems, something the MI100 cannot do. The MI100 has no such alternative benchmark recorded.

So the use-case split is stark: the MI100 is for dedicated compute nodes where raw throughput and memory capacity matter most, while the Vega 64X is for portable or integrated systems that need both graphics output and moderate compute capability.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The process node is 7 nm for the MI100 versus 14 nm for the Vega 64X. The foundry is TSMC for the MI100 versus GlobalFoundries for the Vega 64X. Transistor count is 25,600 million versus 12,500 million. Die size is 750 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density is 34.1M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm².

Clocks differ in base, boost, and memory. Base clock is 1000 MHz for the MI100 versus 1250 MHz for the Vega 64X. Boost clock is 1502 MHz versus 1468 MHz. Memory clock is 1200 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major difference: 32 GB versus 16 GB, 4096-bit bus versus 2048-bit bus, and 1.23 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ: 7,680 shading units versus 4,096, 480 TMUs versus 256, and 64 ROPs in both cases. Pixel rate is 96.13 GPixel/s for the MI100 versus 93.95 GPixel/s for the Vega 64X, a narrow margin. Texture rate is 721.0 GTexel/s versus 375.8 GTexel/s, nearly a 2x difference.

FP32 is 23.07 TFLOPS versus 12.03 TFLOPS. FP16 is 46.14 TFLOPS versus 24.05 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratio.

TDP is 300 W for the MI100 versus 250 W for the Vega 64X. Slot width is dual-slot for the MI100 versus IGP for the Vega 64X. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin for the MI100 versus none for the Vega 64X. The suggested PSU for the MI100 is 700 W; the Vega 64X has no suggested PSU listed.

Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the MI100 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Vega 64X. Display outputs are none for the MI100 versus portable-device-dependent for the Vega 64X. API support is N/A for the MI100 versus DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 for the Vega 64X.

Dimensions differ: the MI100 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the Vega 64X has no listed dimensions. The MI100 is 4.4 inches tall, a detail that matters for chassis compatibility.

The Vega 64X has a Geekbench Metal score of 83,450, which the MI100 lacks. The MI100 has no such score.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the MI100 than the Vega 64X in OpenCL?

A: The MI100 scores 139,035 versus 78,467 for the Vega 64X, a 77.2% advantage.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI100 has 1.23 TB/s versus 512.0 GB/s for the Vega 64X, a 2.4x difference.

Q: Does the MI100 support graphics APIs like Vulkan?

A: No. The MI100 lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, while the Vega 64X supports all three.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The MI100 averages 139,035, while the Vega 64X averages 80,959.

Q: Which card has a higher base clock?

A: The Vega 64X has a base clock of 1250 MHz versus 1000 MHz for the MI100, though the MI100 boosts higher at 1502 MHz versus 1468 MHz.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for pure compute performance. The AMD Instinct MI100 is the superior choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL, FP32, or FP16 throughput. It is 77.2% ahead of the Vega 64X in the only common benchmark, and it ranks at the 96th percentile overall, placing it among the fastest accelerators ever recorded. Its 32 GB of HBM2 memory, 1.23 TB/s bandwidth, and 23.07 TFLOPS of FP32 make it a serious tool for high-performance computing, AI inference, and large data processing. The lack of display outputs is irrelevant in that context.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is a different kind of product. It is an integrated GPU for portable systems, with display outputs and full graphics API support. Its 16 GB of HBM2 and 12.03 TFLOPS of FP32 are still substantial, and its 92nd percentile ranking shows it is far from weak. But its OpenCL score of 78,467 is less than 57% of the MI100's score, and it has no benchmark where it beats the MI100.

The choice depends entirely on the intended use. A system builder needing a dedicated compute accelerator with maximum throughput and memory capacity should pick the MI100. A system integrator building a portable or integrated device that needs graphics output and moderate compute should pick the Vega 64X. The data does not support any other conclusion.