AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs NVIDIA A10G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA A10G and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64. In the two shared benchmark tests, the A10G wins outright, and the margins are substantial.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A10G scores 158063, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 manages 71094. That is a delta of 122.3%, meaning the A10G more than doubles the Vega 64's OpenCL output. This is not a narrow edge; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The A10G posts 145863, against the Vega 64's 74174, a delta of 96.6%. Even at its closest, the Vega 64 still trails by nearly double. The A10G's Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score, while the Vega 64's Vulkan result is slightly higher than its OpenCL figure, but neither adjustment changes the overall outcome.

The aggregate averages reinforce this. The A10G carries an average benchmark score of 151963, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Vega 64 averages 72379, which lands in the 91st percentile. Both are high performers relative to the broader field, but the absolute difference is enormous: the A10G's average is roughly 110% higher.

Context from nearest rivals makes the A10G's position clearer. Its average score sits 1.1% above the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB, 5.4% below the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X, 6.5% below the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, and 9.3% above the AMD Instinct MI100. The A10G is firmly in the upper tier of server-class accelerators, trading blows with flagship datacenter parts.

The Vega 64's nearest rivals are a different class entirely. It sits 0.4% above the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, 0.9% above the AMD Radeon RX 6650M, 1.4% below the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition, and 2.2% above the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE. These are high-end consumer or early workstation parts, not modern datacenter accelerators. The Vega 64 is competitive within its own generation, but that generation is simply outclassed here.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA A10G uses the GA102 chip built on the Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip based on GCN 5.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3M per mm².

The manufacturing difference is stark. The A10G's 8 nm node is two generations ahead of the Vega 64's 14 nm process, allowing more than double the transistor count in a die that is only about 27% larger. This directly explains the compute gap: the A10G has 9216 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A10G also brings dedicated hardware that the Vega 64 lacks entirely: 72 RT cores and 288 tensor cores. The Vega 64 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores.

Clock speeds differ as well. The A10G runs at a base of 1320 MHz and boosts to 1710 MHz. The Vega 64 has a base of 1250 MHz and a boost of 1350 MHz. Combined with the higher shader count, the A10G delivers 31.52 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Vega 64 manages 11.06 TFLOPS. On FP16, the A10G again delivers 31.52 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Vega 64 reaches 22.12 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The Vega 64's FP16 advantage over its own FP32 is real, but it still falls short of the A10G's absolute FP16 throughput.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The A10G uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The Vega 64 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). The A10G has more capacity and higher bandwidth, despite the Vega 64's much wider bus. The HBM2 implementation on the Vega 64 is older and slower per pin.

Feature support also diverges. The A10G supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A10G has the newer API baseline, particularly on DirectX and Vulkan. The Vega 64's older GCN architecture lacks the hardware features needed for the 12_2 feature level.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA A10G delivers 31.52 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 delivers 11.06 TFLOPS. The A10G is roughly 2.85 times faster in raw FP32 throughput.

Q: How much faster is the A10G in OpenCL?

A: The A10G scores 158063 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 71094 for the Vega 64, a delta of 122.3%. The A10G achieves more than double the OpenCL score.

Q: Does the Vega 64 have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Vega 64 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The A10G includes 72 RT cores and 288 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The A10G has 24 GB of GDDR6, while the Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2. The A10G also has higher bandwidth at 600.2 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller process node?

A: The A10G is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the Vega 64 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The A10G's node is denser, allowing 45.1M transistors per mm² versus 25.3M.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The A10G has an average benchmark score of 151963, placing it in the 97th percentile. The Vega 64 averages 72379, in the 91st percentile. The A10G's average is about 110% higher.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: the A10G uses 8 nm, the Vega 64 uses 14 nm. Transistor count: 28,300 million versus 12,500 million. Die size: 628 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density: 45.1M per mm² versus 25.3M.

Base clock: 1320 MHz versus 1250 MHz. Boost clock: 1710 MHz versus 1350 MHz. Memory clock: 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) versus 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). Memory size: 24 GB versus 16 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus HBM2. Bus width: 384 bit versus 2048 bit. Bandwidth: 600.2 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s.

Shading units: 9216 versus 4096. TMUs: 288 versus 256. ROPs: 96 versus 64. RT cores: 72 versus none. Tensor cores: 288 versus none. Pixel rate: 164.2 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 492.5 GTexel/s versus 345.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 31.52 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS. FP16: 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 150 W versus 250 W. Slot width: single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 8-pin EPS versus none. Suggested PSU: 450 W versus none listed. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: none versus portable device dependent. DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). Vulkan: 1.4 versus 1.3. Dimensions: the A10G is 267 mm long and 112 mm high, while the Vega 64 has no listed dimensions.

Release dates also differ: the A10G launched on 2021-04-11, while the Vega 64 launched on 2017-06-26. The A10G's predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada. The Vega 64 has no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA A10G is the superior compute device across every shared benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, with deltas of 122.3% in OpenCL and 96.6% in Vulkan. It has more than double the shading units, higher clocks, more memory, higher bandwidth, and dedicated RT and tensor cores. The Vega 64 cannot close the gap in any measured category.

The percentile rankings confirm the hierarchy. The A10G sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega 64 sits in the 91st. Both are above average, but the A10G is in a different performance bracket. Its nearest rivals include the Tesla V100, Radeon Pro W6800X, A100, and Instinct MI100, all modern datacenter or high-end workstation parts. The Vega 64's nearest rivals are the TITAN X Pascal, RX 6650M, Vega Frontier Edition, and RX 6600 LE, which are older or consumer-oriented.

The Vega 64 does have one redeeming trait: its 2:1 FP16 ratio gives it 22.12 TFLOPS, which is closer to the A10G's 31.52 TFLOPS than the FP32 comparison. But even that advantage is insufficient. The A10G still leads in FP16 absolute throughput.

For any workload where raw compute matters, the A10G is the obvious selection. The Vega 64 remains a functional GPU within its own generation, but the recorded benchmarks show it is not competitive with the A10G. The architecture gap, process node gap, and feature gap all stack against it.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10G wins in every measured benchmark and every raw specification category. It is the choice for compute-heavy tasks: OpenCL workloads, Vulkan rendering, FP32 or FP16 processing, and any application that can leverage tensor cores or RT cores. Its 24 GB memory capacity and 600.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for larger datasets and higher-resolution workloads. Its 150 W TDP and single-slot design also make it more power-efficient per unit of performance, despite offering far more compute.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its strongest relative position is in FP16 compute, where its 2:1 ratio gives it 22.12 TFLOPS, but that still trails the A10G. Its 2048-bit memory bus is wider, but the older HBM2 implementation yields lower overall bandwidth. Its 250 W TDP is higher, and it lacks dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware.

The Vega 64's only practical advantage is its form factor as an IGP with no external power connectors, which suits systems where a discrete power connection is unavailable. It also has display outputs that are portable device dependent, while the A10G has none. For users constrained to a specific Mac-oriented or integrated form factor, the Vega 64 is the only option of the two. For every other use case, the A10G dominates on the strength of its compute scores, memory subsystem, and architectural features.