AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs Intel Arc A770 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear and decisive picture: Intel Arc A770 wins both recorded benchmark comparisons, leaving AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 with zero victories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel card posts 109,175 against AMD’s 71,094, a delta of -34.9% from AMD’s perspective. That is not a marginal gap; it is a substantial margin that places the Arc A770 in a different performance tier for compute-heavy workloads. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin: Intel scores 94,284 versus AMD’s 74,174, a 21.3% deficit for the Vega 64. Both results point in the same direction—Intel’s newer architecture delivers significantly higher raw throughput in these cross-vendor API benchmarks.

The average benchmark scores also favor Intel, but the overall picture is more nuanced. The Arc A770 averages 68,809 across all its benchmarks, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64 averages 72,379. That means the AMD card actually holds a higher average score, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This discrepancy likely stems from the different benchmark suites available for each card. The Vega 64’s averages include Geekbench Metal (71,868), OpenCL (71,094), and Vulkan (74,174), all of which cluster closely together. The Arc A770’s averages include a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2,969, which drags its average down considerably when combined with its much higher OpenCL and Vulkan scores. The data suggests the Intel card is more specialized—excelling in certain APIs while being weaker in others—whereas the AMD card is more consistent across the board.

Percentile rankings further contextualize these results. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 sits at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc A770 sits at the 90th. That one-percentile difference is negligible in practical terms, placing both cards in the upper echelon of performance. The nearest rivals for each card reinforce this positioning: the Vega 64’s closest competitors include the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (average 72,098, delta 0.4%) and AMD Radeon RX 6650M (average 71,768, delta 0.9%), while the Arc A770’s rivals include the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (average 69,000, delta -0.3%) and AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (average 68,562, delta 0.4%). These tight deltas indicate that both cards are finely balanced against their direct contemporaries, with no clear knockout blow in either direction.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the benchmark data, Intel Arc A770 wins decisively in cross-platform compute APIs. Its OpenCL score of 109,175 is 53.6% higher than the Vega 64’s 71,094, suggesting that applications leveraging OpenCL for general-purpose GPU compute will see substantial performance benefits on the Intel card. Similarly, the Vulkan result of 94,284 versus 74,174 shows Intel leading by 27.1%, which is relevant for modern games and applications that use Vulkan as their primary rendering API. The Arc A770 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Vega 64 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), meaning Intel’s card can handle newer DirectX features like ray tracing and mesh shaders—the Vega 64 has no dedicated ray tracing cores, while the Arc A770 includes 32 RT cores.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, however, wins in the consistency department. Its three Geekbench scores—71,868 in Metal, 71,094 in OpenCL, and 74,174 in Vulkan—are remarkably close to each other, with less than a 4.5% spread between the highest and lowest. This uniformity suggests that the Vega 64 performs predictably across different API environments, which can be valuable in professional workflows where software compatibility is paramount. The card also holds a higher average benchmark score (72,379 versus 68,809) and a slightly better percentile ranking (91st versus 90th). For users who prioritize consistent, dependable performance over peak throughput in specific APIs, the AMD card has a defensible position.

The architectural differences further illuminate where each card excels. The Vega 64’s HBM2 memory (16 GB, 2048-bit bus, 402.4 GB/s bandwidth) offers high bandwidth for its era, but the Arc A770’s GDDR6 memory (16 GB, 256-bit bus, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth) provides 27.2% more bandwidth, which likely contributes to its superior compute scores. The Intel card also has double the ROPs (128 versus 64) and nearly double the pixel rate (307.2 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s), indicating a clear advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution rasterization.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by five years of technological evolution. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip on the GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc A770, by contrast, uses the DG2-512 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, built on TSMC’s 6 nm process. It contains 21,700 million transistors in a smaller 406 mm² die, achieving a density of 53.4 million per square millimeter—more than double the AMD chip’s density. This density advantage explains how Intel packs significantly more computational resources into a smaller physical footprint.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational progress. The Vega 64 runs at a base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost of 1350 MHz, while the Arc A770 operates at 2100 MHz base and 2400 MHz boost. That is a 68% higher base clock and a 77.8% higher boost clock for the Intel card. Combined with the architectural improvements, this clock advantage translates directly into the measured performance gap. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the Arc A770 delivers 19.66 TFLOPS versus the Vega 64’s 11.06 TFLOPS, a 77.8% advantage. FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with Intel at 39.32 TFLOPS and AMD at 22.12 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally between the two. The Vega 64 uses HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 402.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Arc A770 uses GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, Intel’s higher memory clock (2000 MHz versus 786 MHz) and superior bandwidth win out. Both cards offer 16 GB of memory, which is a point of parity. The Vega 64 draws 250 W TDP, while the Arc A770 draws 225 W, meaning the Intel card delivers more performance while consuming less power—evidence of the efficiency gains of the newer process node.

Other notable differences: the Arc A770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Intel’s card has dual-slot cooling and requires a 6-pin plus 8-pin power connector, while the Vega 64 is an integrated graphics solution with no power connectors. The Arc A770 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 64 supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs differ as well: the Arc A770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the Vega 64’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, reflecting its Mac-oriented design.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw compute performance: the Intel Arc A770 wins both head-to-head benchmarks by substantial margins—34.9% in OpenCL and 21.3% in Vulkan. Its higher clock speeds, greater FP32 throughput, larger ROP count, and higher memory bandwidth all reinforce this result. For users who want maximum performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Arc A770 is the clear choice.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 should not be dismissed outright. It holds a higher average benchmark score (72,379 versus 68,809) and a better percentile ranking (91st versus 90th). Its consistent performance across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan suggests it may be more reliable in mixed-API environments. The Vega 64 also launched in 2017 as an end-of-life product, while the Arc A770 launched in 2022 as the predecessor to the upcoming Battlemage architecture—meaning Intel’s card is newer and likely to receive longer software support.

The Vega 64 is best suited for users already invested in Apple’s ecosystem, given its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation label and portable device dependent outputs. The Arc A770 is better for Windows-based gaming and compute workloads, especially those leveraging DirectX 12 Ultimate features or Vulkan 1.4. If your software primarily uses Metal, the Vega 64 has a score of 71,868 to consider. If your software uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the Arc A770’s 109,175 and 94,284 scores are hard to ignore.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, with an average of 72,379 compared to the Intel Arc A770’s 68,809.

Q: What is the biggest single-benchmark performance gap between the two?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel Arc A770 scores 109,175 versus the Vega 64’s 71,094, a 34.9% difference.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both have 16 GB, but the Arc A770 uses GDDR6 with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Vega 64 uses HBM2 with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A770 has dedicated RT cores (32 of them) and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Vega 64 lacks RT cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Arc A770?

A: The launch MSRP is 329 USD. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has no listed launch MSRP.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The Arc A770 has a density of 53.4 million transistors per mm², while the Vega 64 has 25.3 million per mm²—the Intel card is more than twice as dense.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 | Intel Arc A770 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 21,700 million |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1250 MHz | 2100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1350 MHz | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 2048 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| ROPs | 64 | 128 |

| RT Cores | None | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 86.40 GPixel/s | 307.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 345.6 GTexel/s | 614.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 11.06 TFLOPS | 19.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 22.12 TFLOPS | 39.32 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 250 W | 225 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |

| Release Date | 2017-06-26 | 2022-10-11 |

| Predecessor | None | Xe Graphics |

| Successor | None | Battlemage |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 91 | 90 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 72,379 | 68,809 |