AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X Comparison

AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X are both end-of-life workstation accelerators built on AMD’s GCN architecture, but they target fundamentally different use cases. The MI60 is a 7 nm data-center compute card designed for high-throughput parallel workloads, while the Vega 64X is a 14 nm mobile-integrated graphics processor (IGP) tailored for Apple’s Mac Pro laptops. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head result, with the MI60 dominating in OpenCL, but the broader spec sheets reveal a gap in memory capacity, bandwidth, and process technology that favors the newer MI60 for server deployments, whereas the Vega 64X offers a lower power envelope and integrated form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 wins the only direct benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 92,488 against the Vega 64X’s 78,467, a 17.9% advantage. This aligns with its positioning as a compute accelerator—its higher boost clock (1800 MHz vs. 1468 MHz), doubled memory capacity (32 GB vs. 16 GB), and doubled memory bandwidth (1.02 TB/s vs. 512.0 GB/s) collectively drive superior raw throughput in OpenCL workloads. The MI60 also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,444, which is statistically identical to its OpenCL result, suggesting consistent performance across different compute APIs. Its average benchmark score of 92,466 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, narrowly ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671, +0.9%) and the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134, +1.5%). Within its nearest rival group, the MI60 trails only the AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131, -4.8%) and AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487, -5.2%).

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X wins on power efficiency and form factor, though not on any benchmark. Its 250 W TDP is 50 W lower than the MI60’s 300 W, and it is an IGP with no power connectors—it draws power directly from the host system, whereas the MI60 requires a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connector. The Vega 64X also carries a Geekbench Metal score of 83,450, which is higher than its OpenCL score (78,467) but lower than the MI60’s OpenCL result. In the nearest-rival comparison, the Vega 64X averages 80,959, placing it in the 92nd percentile; it sits just behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995, -1.3%) and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842, +1.4%) and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants (79,605 at +1.7% and 79,396 at +2.0%). For a portable device, the Vega 64X’s integrated design and lower power draw are clear wins, even if its compute performance lags.

Architecture Differences

The MI60 uses the Vega 20 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 13,230 million transistors into a 331 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.0M per mm². In contrast, the Vega 64X uses the Vega 10 chip on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors on a much larger 495 mm² die, giving a density of just 25.3M per mm². This process shrink allows the MI60 to run a significantly higher boost clock (1800 MHz vs. 1468 MHz) despite a higher base clock (1200 MHz vs. 1250 MHz, where the Vega 64X actually starts higher). Both chips share the same shader core count (4096 shading units), texture mapping units (256 TMUs), and raster operation units (64 ROPs), but the MI60’s clock advantage translates into higher pixel and texture rates: 115.2 GPixel/s and 460.8 GTexel/s versus 93.95 GPixel/s and 375.8 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The MI60 features 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 1.02 TB/s bandwidth; the Vega 64X halves both capacity (16 GB) and bus width (2048-bit), capping at 512.0 GB/s. Both use HBM2 with 1000 MHz memory clock and 2 Gbps effective data rate. Compute throughput follows suit: the MI60 delivers 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the Vega 64X manages 12.03 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The MI60 also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the link bandwidth over the Vega 64X’s PCIe 3.0 x16. API support is identical (DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3), and neither chip includes ray tracing or tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 wins decisively, scoring 92,488 versus 78,467 for the Radeon Pro Vega 64X—a 17.9% advantage.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The MI60 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 64X has 16 GB on a 2048-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s—exactly half the capacity and bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MI60 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector, whereas the Vega 64X has a 250 W TDP and uses no external power connectors, drawing power directly as an IGP.

Q: Are they based on the same architecture?

A: No. The MI60 uses GCN 5.1 on a 7 nm node (Vega 20), while the Vega 64X uses GCN 5.0 on a 14 nm node (Vega 10). Both share 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

Q: How do they rank among all GPUs?

A: The MI60 sits in the 93rd percentile with an average score of 92,466, while the Vega 64X is in the 92nd percentile with an average of 80,959.

Q: Which has better Vulkan performance?

A: The MI60’s Vulkan score is 92,444, nearly identical to its OpenCL result; the Vega 64X does not have a Vulkan benchmark listed, but its OpenCL score is 78,467.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X |

|---------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|

| Chip | Vega 20 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | GCN 5.1 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 13,230 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 331 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.0M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1200 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1800 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB HBM2 | 16 GB HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.02 TB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 115.2 GPixel/s | 93.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 460.8 GTexel/s | 375.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 14.75 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 29.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm L, 111 mm H | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2018-11-17 | 2019-03-18 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The MI60 scores 92,488, beating the Vega 64X’s 78,467 by 17.9%. This margin is not trivial—it reflects the combined effect of a 22.6% higher boost clock (1800 vs. 1468 MHz), double the memory bandwidth (1.02 TB/s vs. 512.0 GB/s), and a 22.6% higher FP32 throughput (14.75 vs. 12.03 TFLOPS). The MI60’s 7 nm process allows it to sustain higher clocks on a smaller die, and the extra 16 GB of VRAM provides headroom for larger datasets.

On the Vega 64X side, its best available score is Geekbench Metal at 83,450, which is 6.3% higher than its OpenCL result but still 9.9% below the MI60’s OpenCL score. This suggests the Vega 64X performs better in Apple’s Metal API, likely due to driver optimizations for Mac environments, but it cannot close the gap. In the nearest-rival context, the MI60’s 92,466 average score places it just above the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) and RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134), while the Vega 64X’s 80,959 average sits between the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842). The MI60’s rivals are newer workstation cards, whereas the Vega 64X competes with older Tesla P100 parts, highlighting the generational gulf in compute capability. The MI60’s win count of 1 versus 0 for the Vega 64X in head-to-head tests underscores that for pure compute, the MI60 is the clear choice; the Vega 64X’s value lies in its integrated, low-power design for portable systems.