AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data confirms a decisive shift in performance leadership, though the AMD card retains specific advantages in raw throughput metrics that merit closer examination. The RTX 2000 Ada achieves an average benchmark score of 81,916, placing it 1.6% ahead of the Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 80,611. Both cards occupy the 93rd percentile among all GPUs, indicating that despite their generational gap, they compete in a similar performance tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation posts a score of 85,370 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 78,565. This represents an 8.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that reflects the architectural efficiency gains of the Ada Lovelace design. The delta translates to roughly 6,805 additional points, which in real-world terms could mean noticeably faster compute workloads in OpenCL-accelerated applications.

The RTX 2000 Ada’s victory is further contextualized by its nearest rival comparisons. It sits just 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon 8060S (82,555) and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (83,209), while leading the Radeon Pro Vega 64X by the aforementioned 1.6% in average score. This places the NVIDIA card in a tight cluster of workstation GPUs where performance differences are measured in single-digit percentages, making the 8.7% OpenCL gap against the Vega 64X particularly significant.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, for its part, shows its strongest result in Geekbench Metal with a score of 82,656, which exceeds its OpenCL score of 78,565 by 5.2%. This Metal advantage is notable for macOS environments, though the benchmark suite does not provide a direct Metal comparison against the NVIDIA card, which lacks Metal support in its feature set. The Vega 64X’s average score of 80,611 places it 2.4% behind the AMD Radeon 8060S and 3.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6600, showing that it trails not only the newer NVIDIA part but also more recent AMD workstation offerings.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, taking the OpenCL test with an 8.7% margin. This victory is rooted in its higher boost clock of 2,130 MHz compared to the Vega 64X’s 1,468 MHz, which allows the Ada card to execute more instructions per second despite having fewer shading units. The RTX 2000 Ada’s FP32 throughput of 12.00 TFLOPS is nearly identical to the Vega 64X’s 12.03 TFLOPS, yet the NVIDIA card achieves this with 2,816 shading units versus 4,096 on the AMD part — a 45% reduction in core count that underscores the efficiency of the Ada architecture.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark, holds clear advantages in other measurable areas. Its FP16 throughput of 24.05 TFLOPS is exactly double its FP32 rate, reflecting a 2:1 ratio that the NVIDIA card does not match — the RTX 2000 Ada offers only 12.00 TFLOPS in FP16, a 1:1 ratio. This makes the Vega 64X potentially superior for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference tasks or scientific simulations. The AMD card also delivers 512.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, exactly double the RTX 2000 Ada’s 256.0 GB/s, a critical factor for memory-bound applications like large dataset processing or high-resolution texture streaming.

Texture rate is another area where the Vega 64X excels, posting 375.8 GTexel/s against the RTX 2000 Ada’s 187.4 GTexel/s — a 100.6% advantage. This stems from the AMD card’s 256 texture mapping units versus 88 on the NVIDIA card. However, the RTX 2000 Ada counters with a higher pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s versus 93.95 GPixel/s, a 8.8% advantage that benefits rasterization-heavy workloads.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is built on the AD107 chip using TSMC’s 5 nm process, packing 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the advanced manufacturing node. The Vega 64X, in contrast, uses the Vega 10 chip fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 12,500 million transistors spread across a much larger 495 mm² die, giving a density of just 25.3 million per square millimeter. The Ada Lovelace architecture also introduces dedicated hardware that the GCN 5.0 architecture lacks: the RTX 2000 Ada includes 22 ray tracing cores and 88 tensor cores, while the Vega 64X has neither RT cores nor tensor cores in its specification.

Memory configurations differ fundamentally between the two cards. The RTX 2000 Ada uses 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 64X also has 16 GB, but uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s — exactly twice the bandwidth. The AMD card’s memory runs at an effective 2 Gbps, while the NVIDIA card’s GDDR6 operates at 16 Gbps effective, demonstrating how bus width compensates for slower individual memory chips. The Vega 64X’s memory configuration is a remnant of the HBM era, offering bandwidth advantages that the newer GDDR6 implementation cannot match.

Power and interface specifications diverge sharply. The RTX 2000 Ada has a TDP of 70 W and requires no external power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Vega 64X consumes 250 W, more than 3.5 times the NVIDIA card’s power draw, and is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable device-dependent display outputs. The RTX 2000 Ada is a dual-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Vega 64X has no fixed display configuration. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x16 — the newer interface standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the x8 configuration halves the lane count.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 85,370 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 78,565.

Q: Does the AMD card have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro Vega 64X offers 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth (double the RTX 2000 Ada’s 256.0 GB/s) and 375.8 GTexel/s texture rate (double the 187.4 GTexel/s), plus 24.05 TFLOPS FP16 throughput versus 12.00 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada achieves 118.9 million transistors per mm² on a 159 mm² die, while the Vega 64X has 25.3 million per mm² on a 495 mm² die — a 4.7x density advantage for the NVIDIA chip.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No, the RTX 2000 Ada has 22 dedicated ray tracing cores, while the Vega 64X has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores listed in its specifications.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has 4,096 shading units, compared to 2,816 on the RTX 2000 Ada — a 45.5% higher count, though the NVIDIA card achieves similar FP32 performance.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is listed as Active, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64X is End-of-life, with the NVIDIA card released on 2024-02-11 and the AMD card on 2019-03-18.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation for general compute workloads, as evidenced by its 8.7% OpenCL victory and higher average score of 81,916 versus 80,611. The NVIDIA card achieves this with dramatically lower power consumption (70 W versus 250 W), a smaller die (159 mm² versus 495 mm²), and modern features like ray tracing and tensor cores that the AMD card entirely lacks. For users prioritizing efficiency, compact form factor, and current-generation feature support, the RTX 2000 Ada is the straightforward choice.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, despite its age and end-of-life status, remains competitive in specific scenarios. Its double memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s) and double texture rate (375.8 GTexel/s) make it potentially superior for memory-bandwidth-bound tasks or texture-heavy workloads. The 2:1 FP16 ratio (24.05 TFLOPS) offers a computational advantage for half-precision applications. However, the lack of ray tracing, higher power draw, and portable-device-dependent display outputs limit its versatility in modern workstation environments. The data suggests the Vega 64X is best suited for legacy Mac-based workflows or specialized compute tasks where its bandwidth and FP16 throughput are the limiting factors, while the RTX 2000 Ada is the more balanced and future-proof option across the board.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation | AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X |

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

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 118.9M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1620 MHz | 1250 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2130 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2816 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 88 | 256 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 22 | — |

| Tensor Cores | 88 | — |

| Pixel Rate | 102.2 GPixel/s | 93.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 187.4 GTexel/s | 375.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 12.00 TFLOPS | 12.03 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 12.00 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

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

| Release Date | 2024-02-11 | 2019-03-18 |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | — |