AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two workstation GPUs cleanly by era and purpose. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the modern choice for anyone prioritizing compute throughput, API compatibility, and power efficiency. Its average benchmark score of 117,088 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 sits at 72,379, in the 91st percentile. In direct head-to-head tests, the RTX 4000 SFF wins both recorded benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL by 75.6% (124,812 vs 71,094) and Geekbench Vulkan by 47.4% (109,364 vs 74,174). The verdict is straightforward: pick the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation for current-generation workloads, particularly those using Vulkan or ray tracing. Pick the Radeon Pro Vega 64 only if you are locked into a Mac ecosystem where Metal performance matters, or if the workload is specifically tuned for GCN architecture. The Vega 64 is end-of-life, while the RTX 4000 SFF is active in production. The RTX 4000 SFF's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, scores 117,393, a mere 0.3% higher, meaning the Ada card is statistically tied with that part. The Radeon Pro Vega 64's closest competitor, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, scores 72,098, just 0.4% below it, showing the Vega 64 is right at the top of its performance class.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent opposite ends of the silicon design spectrum. The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The Radeon Pro Vega 64 uses AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, with 12,500 million transistors on a much larger 495 mm² die, giving a density of just 25.3 million per mm². The Ada chip is built on a node roughly two generations ahead, which explains the massive efficiency gap.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, providing 402.4 GB/s. The Vega 64's bandwidth advantage is real, nearly 44% higher, but it comes with a power cost. The Ada card draws 70 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Vega 64 draws 250 W TDP, more than three times as much, and is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no discrete power connectors.

Compute resources tell a different story. The RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no RT cores and no tensor cores. The Ada card's FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS, while the Vega 64 delivers 11.06 TFLOPS. Interestingly, the Vega 64's FP16 rate is 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), higher than its FP32, while the Ada card's FP16 is 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The Vega 64's texture rate is 345.6 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s for the Ada card, and its pixel rate is 86.40 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s.

Interface and display capabilities also differ. The RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and outputs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. API support favors NVIDIA: the Ada card 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 DirectX feature level difference (12_2 vs 12_1) is significant for modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in every directly comparable benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 124,812, which is 75.6% higher than the Vega 64's 71,094. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 109,364, which is 47.4% higher than the Vega 64's 74,174. These are not narrow margins; the Ada card is decisively ahead in general-purpose compute and in the Vulkan API. The Ada card also wins on power efficiency by a wide margin, using 70 W versus 250 W. For small-form-factor workstations, the 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and dual-slot width make it a practical fit. The Vega 64 has no listed dimensions, reflecting its IGP design, which is typically soldered to a motherboard.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64's wins are narrower and more situational. Its memory bandwidth of 402.4 GB/s is higher than the Ada card's 280.0 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-bound workloads. Its texture rate of 345.6 GTexel/s exceeds the Ada card's 299.5 GTexel/s. Its FP16 throughput of 22.12 TFLOPS is higher than the Ada card's 19.17 TFLOPS, assuming the software can exploit the 2:1 ratio. The Vega 64 also has a Metal benchmark score of 71,868 in the database, which the NVIDIA card does not have, indicating it was designed for Apple's Metal API environment. For Mac-specific compute tasks, the Vega 64 remains relevant, despite being end-of-life.

The percentile data contextualizes these wins. The RTX 4000 SFF's 95th percentile means it outperforms 95% of all GPUs in the database. The Vega 64's 91st percentile is respectable but clearly lower. The nearest rivals for the Ada card include the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393, 0.3% higher) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976, 1.6% higher), which are essentially peer performance. The Vega 64's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098, 0.4% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71,768, 0.9% lower), again showing it is competitive within its own generation but not against the Ada card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. Its FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 11.06 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Ada card scores 124,812 versus 71,094, a 75.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro Vega 64 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Vega 64 has 402.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth from its 2048-bit HBM2 interface, compared to 280.0 GB/s from the Ada card's 160-bit GDDR6 interface. The Vega 64 also has a higher texture rate at 345.6 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. It has 48 dedicated RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 has no RT cores and no tensor cores.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64 has a TDP of 250 W. The Ada card requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the Vega 64 is an integrated graphics processor with no discrete power connectors.

Q: Which GPU is better for modern API support?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro Vega 64 still in production?

A: No. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is marked as end-of-life in the database. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is marked as active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head comparisons, and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins both without exception.

The first test is Geekbench OpenCL. The Ada card scores 124,812, while the Vega 64 scores 71,094. The delta is 75.6% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the larger of the two margins and reflects the Ada card's advantage in raw FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS vs 11.06 TFLOPS) and its more modern architecture. The Vega 64's higher memory bandwidth (402.4 GB/s vs 280.0 GB/s) does not compensate for its lower compute density. This result places the Ada card 75.6% ahead, a gap so large that it suggests a generational leap rather than a minor spec bump.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. The Ada card scores 109,364, while the Vega 64 scores 74,174. The delta is 47.4% in favor of NVIDIA. The margin is smaller than in OpenCL, but still substantial. The Vega 64's Vulkan score of 74,174 is actually its highest recorded benchmark, higher than its Metal score of 71,868 and its OpenCL score of 71,094. This suggests the GCN architecture is reasonably capable under Vulkan, but the Ada card's newer driver stack and hardware design produce a clear win. The Ada card's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the Vega 64's Vulkan 1.3 may also contribute.

The average benchmark scores confirm the trend. The Ada card averages 117,088 across its two tests, while the Vega 64 averages 72,379 across its three tests. The difference is 44,709 points, roughly 61.8%. The Ada card's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, averages 117,393, which is only 0.3% higher, meaning the Ada card is at the very top of its performance tier. The Vega 64's nearest rival, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, averages 72,098, which is 0.4% lower, placing the Vega 64 slightly above that older card.

The win count is decisive: 2 wins for the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 0 wins for the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64. There are no benchmark categories in the database where the Vega 64 outperforms the Ada card. The only areas where the Vega 64 shows a spec-level advantage are memory bandwidth, texture rate, FP16 throughput, and the existence of a Metal benchmark score. None of those translate into a recorded benchmark win. The data is unambiguous: the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the superior GPU in every measured metric.