AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparative benchmark between these two workstation-class cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA A10M posts a score of 135,230, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X records 78,467. This gives the A10M a decisive 72.3% advantage in this test, the only head-to-head data point available. The margin is substantial, not marginal, indicating a clear performance gap in general compute workloads measured through OpenCL.

The A10M's score places it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs in the database, a very strong showing. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 135,218 (a 0% difference), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 135,774 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136,472 (0.9% higher). These deltas are negligible, meaning the A10M is effectively tied with a group of contemporary professional cards at the top of this benchmark. The A10M sits within 1% of all four of these rivals, showing that its compute performance is not an outlier but rather consistent with the modern upper tier.

The Vega 64X, by contrast, lands in the 92nd percentile, still respectable but clearly lower. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 at 81,995 (1.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 at 79,842 (1.4% higher), and two Tesla P100 variants: the PCIe 16 GB at 79,605 (1.7% higher) and the PCIe 12 GB at 79,396 (2% higher). The Vega 64X is therefore clustered with a mix of older data-center accelerators and a newer consumer flagship, but it trails the W6600 by a small margin. The gap between the two cards in question is far larger than the gaps within each card's own rival cluster.

It is importantly the Vega 64X also has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 83,450, which is higher than its OpenCL score of 78,467. However, no Metal result is available for the A10M, so a direct cross-API comparison cannot be made from the data. The A10M's single benchmark entry is its OpenCL score, and that is the only basis for the head-to-head comparison.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA A10M wins the only direct benchmark comparison. It takes the OpenCL test with a 72.3% lead. The win count is 1 for the A10M and 0 for the Vega 64X. There are no benchmark categories in which the Vega 64X achieves a recorded victory over the A10M. The database does not include tests such as gaming frame rates, ray tracing, or professional rendering workloads for these two cards, so the analysis is limited to the compute-oriented OpenCL result.

The Vega 64X does have a second recorded benchmark, Geekbench Metal, where it scores 83,450. This is higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting the card performs better under Apple's Metal API. However, since the A10M has no Metal score, this cannot be treated as a head-to-head win. The A10M is a server-oriented card with no display outputs, which aligns with its absence from Metal testing. The Vega 64X is listed under the Radeon Pro Mac generation, and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it was designed for integration into portable Mac systems. This contextual difference matters: the Vega 64X likely excels in environments where Metal is the primary API, but the data does not provide a direct comparison there.

For users choosing between these two, the A10M is the clear winner in OpenCL compute. The Vega 64X would be chosen only if the workload specifically requires Metal support, which the A10M cannot offer due to having no display outputs and being built for server use. In every recorded benchmark where both cards appear, the A10M is superior.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA A10M uses the GA102 chip on the Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X uses the Vega 10 chip on the GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a density of 25.3 million per mm². The A10M has more than double the transistor count and over 2.2 times the density, reflecting the newer process node and more complex design.

The clock behavior differs significantly. The A10M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of 1635 MHz. The Vega 64X has a higher base clock of 1250 MHz but a lower boost clock of 1468 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A10M achieves far higher compute throughput because of its larger execution resource pool. The A10M has 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 raster output units. The Vega 64X has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A10M has 78% more shaders and 25% more ROPs, while the Vega 64X has 14% more TMUs.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 64X uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The Vega 64X has slightly higher bandwidth despite less capacity, due to the extremely wide HBM2 interface. The A10M's memory clock is 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the Vega 64X's memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The effective data rate is much higher on the A10M, but the bus width advantage of the Vega 64X balances the bandwidth.

Feature support also diverges. The A10M includes 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores, reflecting the Ampere generation's focus on RT and AI workloads. The Vega 64X has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, as GCN 5.0 predates those dedicated units. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 64X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A10M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Compute throughput figures confirm the A10M's advantage. The A10M delivers 23.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 23.44 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The Vega 64X delivers 12.03 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.05 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). In FP32, the A10M is roughly 95% faster. In FP16, the Vega 64X is slightly ahead by about 2.6%, but this is an exception and relies on the 2:1 rate, which is often not achievable in real workloads. The pixel rate favors the A10M at 130.8 GPixel/s versus 93.95 GPixel/s, while the texture rate slightly favors the Vega 64X at 375.8 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design are also distinct. The A10M has a TDP of 150 W, uses an 8-pin EPS power connector, and is a single-slot design measuring 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The Vega 64X has a TDP of 250 W, uses no power connectors (it is an integrated graphics processor), and its dimensions are not recorded. The Vega 64X uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the A10M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The A10M has no display outputs, while the Vega 64X's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230, which is 72.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X's score of 78,467.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X have any ray tracing cores?

A: No. The Vega 64X has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA A10M has 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory capacity and type for each card?

A: The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus. The Vega 64X has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The A10M delivers 23.44 TFLOPS FP32, while the Vega 64X delivers 12.03 TFLOPS FP32. The A10M is roughly 95% faster in this metric.

Q: Is there a Metal benchmark score for the NVIDIA A10M?

A: No. The database only records a Geekbench OpenCL score for the A10M. The Vega 64X has both a Metal score of 83,450 and an OpenCL score of 78,467.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The A10M has a TDP of 150 W, while the Vega 64X has a TDP of 250 W. The A10M is more power-efficient per the recorded figures.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA A10M is the superior compute performer in OpenCL workloads. Its 72.3% lead in the head-to-head benchmark is decisive and consistent with its much higher FP32 throughput, larger shading unit count, and more advanced architecture. The A10M also benefits from a lower TDP of 150 W versus 250 W, meaning it achieves higher performance with lower power consumption. This makes it the better choice for server environments where compute density and efficiency matter.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is the better choice only in specific contexts that the data can partially support. It has a Metal benchmark score, which the A10M lacks entirely, so any workload that relies on the Metal API would favor the Vega 64X by default. Its FP16 throughput of 24.05 TFLOPS is slightly higher than the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS, but this only applies when using the 2:1 rate, which is typically a narrow use case. The Vega 64X also has a slightly higher texture rate (375.8 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s) and higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s), but these advantages do not overcome the massive gap in OpenCL compute.

For a general-purpose workstation GPU, the A10M wins. For a Mac-integrated system where Metal is required, the Vega 64X is the only option with recorded support. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the A10M sits at the 96th percentile, while the Vega 64X sits at the 92nd. The A10M is effectively tied with the top modern professional cards, while the Vega 64X is grouped with older accelerators and a consumer card. The verdict is straightforward: pick the A10M for compute, pick the Vega 64X only if Metal compatibility is mandatory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A10M | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X |

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

| Chip | GA102 | Vega 10 |

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 5.0 |

| Generation | Server Ampere (Axx) | Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1635 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 500.2 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 7168 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 224 | 256 |

| ROPs | 80 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 56 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 224 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 130.8 GPixel/s | 93.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 366.2 GTexel/s | 375.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 23.44 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 112 mm height | Not recorded |

| Release Date | Not recorded | 2019-03-18 |