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

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy between these two workstation cards. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation dominates the single available head-to-head benchmark, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 78,467—a 59.1% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a decisive generational leap. The average benchmark score across all tested workloads reinforces this, with the RTX 4000 SFF Ada at 117,088 compared to the Vega 64X’s 80,959, a gap of roughly 44.6%.

For professionals seeking maximum compute throughput in OpenCL-heavy applications, the NVIDIA card is the only rational choice based on this data. Its percentile ranking of 95th among all GPUs versus the Vega 64X’s 92nd further cements its position as the higher-performing part. The NVIDIA card also holds a significant efficiency advantage, with a 70 W TDP versus the AMD card’s 250 W, making it suitable for compact, power-constrained systems. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, now end-of-life, is a legacy part that, while still competitive in its own right, cannot match the raw compute output of the newer architecture. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the superior performer; the Vega 64X is an older, slower alternative that should only be considered if its specific platform constraints (IGP form factor, HBM2 memory) are absolute requirements.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is built on the AD104 chip using the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 35,800 million transistors into a die size of 294 mm², yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X uses the Vega 10 chip with the older GCN 5.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip contains 12,500 million transistors spread across a larger 495 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 25.3 million per mm².

The NVIDIA card features 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, alongside 48 dedicated ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD card has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but lacks any dedicated ray tracing or tensor core hardware. This is a critical architectural distinction—the RTX 4000 SFF Ada can accelerate ray-traced workloads and AI inference tasks through its specialized silicon, while the Vega 64X relies purely on general-purpose shader compute.

Clock speeds also tell a story of efficiency versus brute force. The NVIDIA card runs at a base clock of 720 MHz with a boost of 1560 MHz, while the AMD card operates at a higher base clock of 1250 MHz and a boost of 1468 MHz. Despite the lower base clock, the NVIDIA card achieves far higher FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS vs 12.03 TFLOPS) due to its architectural efficiency and higher shader count. In FP16, the AMD card actually outputs more raw compute (24.05 TFLOPS vs 19.17 TFLOPS), but the NVIDIA card does so at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it doesn’t sacrifice precision for speed.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The NVIDIA card uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a massive 2048-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card’s bandwidth advantage is substantial, but it comes with a significantly higher power draw and a much larger physical footprint, as it is designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for portable devices.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812, which is 59.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s score of 78,467.

Q: Does the AMD card have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth due to its 2048-bit HBM2 interface, compared to the NVIDIA card’s 280.0 GB/s over a 160-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a TDP of 70 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has a TDP of 250 W.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing and AI acceleration?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, which includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has no such dedicated hardware.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is listed as Active, released on 2023-03-20. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X is End-of-life, released on 2019-03-18.

Q: How do their overall benchmark percentiles compare?

A: The NVIDIA card ranks in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card ranks in the 92nd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X uses a 14 nm process. Transistor counts are 35,800 million versus 12,500 million, with die sizes of 294 mm² and 495 mm², respectively. The NVIDIA card has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores; the AMD card has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, with no RT or tensor cores. Both have 64 ROPs.

Clock speeds differ: base clocks are 720 MHz (NVIDIA) versus 1250 MHz (AMD), while boost clocks are 1560 MHz versus 1468 MHz. Memory configurations are 20 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus for NVIDIA versus 16 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus for AMD. Bandwidth is 280.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Pixel rates are close (99.84 GPixel/s vs 93.95 GPixel/s), but texture rates favor AMD (375.8 GTexel/s vs 299.5 GTexel/s). FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA (19.17 TFLOPS vs 12.03 TFLOPS), while FP16 favors AMD (24.05 TFLOPS vs 19.17 TFLOPS).

Power requirements are starkly different: 70 W TDP versus 250 W TDP. The NVIDIA card is a dual-slot, 168 mm long PCIe 4.0 x16 card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The AMD card is an IGP with no defined dimensions, using PCIe 3.0 x16 and portable-device-dependent display outputs. API support differs, with NVIDIA supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card is Active production status; the AMD card is End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation achieves a score of 124,812, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X scores 78,467. This represents a 59.1% delta in favor of NVIDIA. To put this in perspective, the NVIDIA card’s score is nearly 1.6 times that of the AMD card. This is not a close contest; it is a dominant performance by the newer architecture.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the NVIDIA card’s average score across all tests is 117,088, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393, -0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976, -1.6% delta), and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395, +2.4% delta). This shows the RTX 4000 SFF Ada is competitive with much larger, higher-power cards. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, by contrast, has an average score of 80,959, placing it in the 92nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 (81,995, -1.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842, +1.4% delta), and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605, +1.7% delta). The gap between the two cards’ average scores is roughly 36,129 points, or about 44.6%.

The NVIDIA card also demonstrates superior scaling in its benchmark results. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 is higher than its average score of 117,088, indicating strong performance in compute-heavy workloads. The AMD card’s OpenCL score of 78,467 is slightly lower than its average of 80,959, suggesting it performs relatively better in other test types. However, even the AMD card’s best-case benchmark (its Metal score of 83,450) falls far short of the NVIDIA card’s worst-case benchmark (its Vulkan score of 109,364). This means the NVIDIA card outperforms the AMD card in every measured scenario, regardless of API or workload type.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in every measurable compute category. It is 59.1% faster in OpenCL, has 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 12.03 TFLOPS, and offers dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores that the AMD card entirely lacks. Its 5 nm process node and 70 W TDP make it vastly more power-efficient, allowing for deployment in compact, low-power workstations without sacrificing performance. The 20 GB of GDDR6 memory, while lower bandwidth than the AMD card, provides more capacity for large datasets, and its Active production status ensures ongoing availability and support. The NVIDIA card’s dual-slot form factor and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a flexible, professional-grade solution for multi-display setups.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but it does hold certain specification advantages that could matter in specific use cases. Its 512.0 GB/s of HBM2 bandwidth is 82.9% higher than the NVIDIA card’s 280.0 GB/s, which could benefit workloads that are extremely memory-bandwidth-bound, such as certain scientific simulations or data processing tasks. Its higher texture rate (375.8 GTexel/s vs 299.5 GTexel/s) may provide advantages in texture-heavy rendering workloads. The card’s IGP form factor means it is designed for portable Mac systems, making it the only option in this comparison for that specific platform. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory, while less capacity than the NVIDIA card, still offers substantial memory for its era. For users locked into a legacy Mac Pro or similar system that requires an IGP, the Vega 64X remains a functional, if outdated, choice. However, for any new workstation build or any workload where compute performance is the priority, the data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation.