AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 71,094. That is a 90.2% advantage for the A10M, which nearly doubles the AMD card's output in this compute-oriented test. The magnitude of this gap is striking, and it is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap expressed in raw numbers.

To frame that score in context, the A10M sits at the 96th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (a -0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (a -0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (a -0.9% delta). The A10M is effectively tied with these cards, all within a 1% band. This suggests the A10M is a well-tuned, high-end server part that lands exactly where the market expects it, in the company of modern workstation flagships.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64, by contrast, sits at the 91st percentile, with an average benchmark score of 72,379 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal at 72,098 (a 0.4% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6650M at 71,768 (a 0.9% delta), the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73,370 (a -1.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE at 70,829 (a 2.2% delta). The Vega 64 is competitive within its own peer group of older or lower-tier cards, but that peer group is far below the A10M's stratum. In the head-to-head comparison, the A10M wins the sole benchmark, and the data shows no test where the Vega 64 pulls ahead.

The 90.2% delta is not subtle. It implies that for OpenCL workloads, the A10M delivers roughly twice the throughput. This is the kind of difference that changes project timelines, not just benchmark leaderboards.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast. The NVIDIA A10M uses the GA102 chip built on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference alone is significant: 8 nm versus 14 nm, which helps explain the transistor density gap. The A10M packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Vega 64 houses 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The A10M fits more than twice the transistors into a die that is only about 27% larger in area.

The memory subsystems diverge completely. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 64 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s. The Vega 64's bus width is six times wider, but the A10M still achieves higher bandwidth due to a much higher effective memory clock: 12.5 Gbps effective for the A10M versus 1572 Mbps effective for the Vega 64. The A10M also has more memory capacity, 20 GB versus 16 GB, which matters for large dataset workloads.

Compute resource counts also favor the A10M heavily. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units. The Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A10M has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores, while the Vega 64 has none of either. This is a fundamental feature gap: the A10M supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations, while the Vega 64 predates those capabilities entirely. The A10M's FP32 throughput is 23.44 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is 23.44 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Vega 64's FP32 is 11.06 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 22.12 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The Vega 64's FP16 is close to the A10M's, but its FP32 is less than half.

The API support also differs. The A10M 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 A10M's DirectX 12 Ultimate and newer Vulkan version reflect its modern feature set. The Vega 64 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no slot width, designed for portable devices. The A10M is a single-slot card with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Vega 64 draws 250 W, while the A10M draws 150 W, which is remarkable given the A10M's far higher performance. The A10M also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database?

A: The NVIDIA A10M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 135,230 versus 71,094 for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64, a 90.2% delta.

Q: How does the A10M compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The A10M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396, -0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, -0.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472, -0.9% delta). All are within 1% of the A10M.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Vega 64 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The A10M has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The A10M has a TDP of 150 W, while the Vega 64 has a TDP of 250 W. The A10M delivers far higher performance at a lower power draw.

Q: What is the transistor count and density comparison?

A: The A10M has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, for a density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The Vega 64 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, for a density of 25.3 million per square millimeter.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The manufacturing process: the A10M is on 8 nm, the Vega 64 on 14 nm. The foundry: Samsung for the A10M, GlobalFoundries for the Vega 64. The transistor count: 28,300 million versus 12,500 million. Die size: 628 mm² versus 495 mm². Transistor density: 45.1 million per square millimeter versus 25.3 million.

Clocks: the A10M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost of 1635 MHz, with memory at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The Vega 64 has a base of 1250 MHz and a boost of 1350 MHz, with memory at 786 MHz (1572 Mbps effective). The A10M has a higher boost clock and vastly higher effective memory speed.

Memory: 20 GB GDDR6 versus 16 GB HBM2. Bus width: 320-bit versus 2048-bit. Bandwidth: 500.2 GB/s versus 402.4 GB/s.

Compute units: 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 80 ROPs for the A10M; 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs for the Vega 64. The A10M has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores; the Vega 64 has none. Pixel rate: 130.8 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 366.2 GTexel/s versus 345.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 23.44 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS. FP16: 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power: the A10M is 150 W, the Vega 64 is 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 for the A10M, portable device dependent for the Vega 64.

APIs: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Dimensions: the A10M is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall; the Vega 64 has no listed dimensions. The A10M's predecessor is Tesla Turing, its successor is Server Ada. The Vega 64 has no listed predecessor or successor. The Vega 64 has a release date of June 26, 2017; the A10M has no release date listed. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10M wins the only direct benchmark, and it wins on nearly every architectural metric. It has more shading units, more ROPs, more memory capacity, higher bandwidth, higher FP32 throughput, and it adds RT and tensor cores. Its lower TDP of 150 W compared to 250 W means it delivers more performance per watt. For any compute-heavy workload measured by OpenCL, the A10M is the clear choice. Its 20 GB memory capacity and 500.2 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large data sets, and its PCIe 4.0 interface allows faster host communication. The absence of display outputs positions it as a pure server compute card, ideal for headless rendering, machine learning inference, or scientific simulation.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 does have some areas where it is not outclassed. Its FP16 throughput of 22.12 TFLOPS is close to the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS, though the A10M achieves this at a 1:1 ratio while the Vega 64 uses a 2:1 ratio, meaning the A10M's FP16 is more general-purpose. The Vega 64 also has more TMUs (256 versus 224), which could theoretically favor texture-heavy workloads, but its lower texture rate of 345.6 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s negates that advantage. The Vega 64's 2048-bit memory bus is wider, but the A10M's higher clock speed delivers more real bandwidth. The Vega 64 is an IGP with no power connectors, which means it is designed for portable or integrated systems where discrete power delivery is not an option.

If a workload requires ray tracing or tensor operations, the A10M is the only option. If a workload is limited to FP16 and can tolerate the Vega 64's 2:1 ratio, the gap narrows but does not close. The Vega 64's release in 2017 places it in a different era, and the data reflects that.

The Verdict

The database is unambiguous: the NVIDIA A10M is the superior GPU by a wide margin in the tested workload. Its OpenCL score of 135,230 is 90.2% higher than the Vega 64's 71,094. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, and it holds a 96th percentile ranking versus the Vega 64's 91st. For anyone choosing between these two based on compute performance, the A10M is the answer.

The Vega 64's only conceivable use case is in a system that requires an integrated GPU with no external power connectors, such as a portable device. It has no display outputs of its own, instead relying on the host device. It also has a release date of June 2017, making it an older design. The A10M, while also end-of-life, is a newer architecture with modern features.

The A10M should be picked by anyone running server-side compute workloads, especially those that benefit from FP32 throughput, large memory capacity, or RT and tensor core acceleration. The Vega 64 should be picked only by someone constrained to a portable, integrated form factor with no discrete power delivery, where its 250 W TDP and IGP design are the deciding factors. Even then, the 90.2% performance gap means the Vega 64 is a last-resort option, not a competitive one. The data does not support any other conclusion.