AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs NVIDIA A10G Comparison

NVIDIA A10G and AMD Radeon Pro Vega II represent two very different approaches to high-performance computing, separated by nearly two years of architecture evolution. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the underlying specifications reveal that each card was designed for a distinct ecosystem and workload profile. The A10G dominates in raw compute benchmarks, while the Pro Vega II offers unique features like integrated Thunderbolt outputs and a much larger memory pool, making the choice less about absolute performance and more about platform fit.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench's OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA A10G scores 158,063 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II manages 99,048 points. This translates to a 59.6% advantage for the A10G, a massive gap that underscores the generational leap in compute throughput. To put this in perspective, the A10G's average benchmark score of 151,963 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Pro Vega II's average of 109,617 sits in the 94th percentile. The difference in percentile rankings is relatively small, but the raw score delta is enormous because the top percentiles contain widely spaced results.

In the Vulkan API test, the pattern repeats. The A10G posts 145,863 points against the Pro Vega II's 99,621, a 46.4% margin in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is slightly narrower than the OpenCL gap, suggesting the AMD card's GCN architecture handles Vulkan's lower-level abstractions relatively better than OpenCL, but it remains firmly behind. The A10G's Vulkan score is also notably closer to its OpenCL result than the Pro Vega II's is, indicating that NVIDIA's Ampere architecture has more consistent performance across different compute APIs.

The data reveals a curious asymmetry. While the A10G wins both shared tests, the Pro Vega II has an additional benchmark in its portfolio: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 130,183 points. This is not a test the A10G can run, as it lacks the necessary display outputs and is not designed for Apple's ecosystem. This single data point hints at the Pro Vega II's intended deployment environment, but it also highlights that the A10G's victories come in cross-platform APIs where it enjoys a significant architectural advantage in raw shader throughput and ray tracing capabilities.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA A10G in OpenCL?

A: The A10G scores 158,063 to the Pro Vega II's 99,048, which is a 59.6% higher result. This is the largest margin in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No, in the two benchmarks both cards share (OpenCL and Vulkan), the A10G wins both. The Pro Vega II only has a unique Metal test score of 130,183, which has no direct comparison.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The A10G's average across its benchmarks is 151,963, while the Pro Vega II's average is 109,617. This represents a 42,346-point gap, or roughly 38.6% higher for the A10G, though the exact percentage varies by test.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The A10G is 1.1% above the Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB and 9.3% above the AMD Instinct MI100, but 5.4% below the Radeon Pro W6800X. The Pro Vega II is 2.1% above the Pro W6600X and 2.7% above the Pro Vega II Duo, but 1% below the PRO W7900 and 3.8% below the RTX A5500 Mobile.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The A10G sits in the 97th percentile, while the Pro Vega II is in the 94th percentile. Despite the large score gap, both are near the top of the overall GPU performance distribution.

Q: Is the Pro Vega II's Metal score higher than the A10G's Vulkan score?

A: No, the Pro Vega II's Metal score is 130,183, which is lower than the A10G's Vulkan score of 145,863 and its OpenCL score of 158,063.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs could not be more different in their foundational design. The NVIDIA A10G uses the GA102 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die. This gives it a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II uses the Vega 20 chip on TSMC's 7 nm node, containing only 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, for a density of 40.0 million per mm². The A10G has more than twice the transistors and nearly double the die area, yet its process node is older. This means NVIDIA's architecture is doing significantly more work per square millimeter of silicon.

The compute resources are starkly different. The A10G has 9,216 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 72 dedicated ray tracing cores and 288 tensor cores. The Pro Vega II has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor cores at all. This means the A10G has 2.25 times the shading units and 1.5 times the texture units, but the architectural approach diverges further. The A10G's FP32 throughput is 31.52 TFLOPS, while its FP16 is identical at 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The Pro Vega II manages only 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 but boosts FP16 to 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The A10G still leads in FP16, but the AMD card's 2:1 ratio shows it prioritized half-precision throughput closer to its peak.

Memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The A10G uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro Vega II uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a massive 4096-bit bus, achieving 825.3 GB/s. This is a 37.5% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, which is crucial for memory-bound workloads. The A10G's memory clock runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the Pro Vega II's runs at 806 MHz (1612 Mbps effective), but the vastly wider bus compensates for the lower clock speed.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA A10G is the superior performer in compute-heavy tasks. It wins both shared tests by enormous margins and holds a 97th percentile ranking versus the Pro Vega II's 94th. The A10G's 59.6% OpenCL lead and 46.4% Vulkan lead indicate that for any general-purpose compute workload, the NVIDIA card is the rational choice. Its higher FP32 throughput, ray tracing cores, and tensor cores make it a more versatile accelerator for modern AI, rendering, and simulation tasks.

However, the Pro Vega II is not without merit. Its 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 825.3 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the A10G's 24 GB and 600.2 GB/s, which matters for datasets that exceed 24 GB or workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth constrained. The Pro Vega II also has display outputs (1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt), making it a functional graphics card, whereas the A10G has no outputs and is purely a compute accelerator. The AMD card's Metal benchmark score of 130,183 also indicates it is tuned for Apple's ecosystem, which the A10G cannot serve at all.

For a data center or server environment where compute density and API versatility are paramount, the A10G is the clear winner. For a Mac Pro user or someone needing a single card that can drive displays and handle large memory footprints, the Pro Vega II is the only one of the two that fits. The data does not support the Pro Vega II as a compute leader, but it does support it as a niche solution for specific platforms and memory-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A10G | AMD Radeon Pro Vega II |

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

| Chip | GA102 | Vega 20 |

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 5.1 |

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

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 13,230 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 331 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 40.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1320 MHz | 1574 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1710 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 806 MHz (1612 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB GDDR6 | 32 GB HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 600.2 GB/s | 825.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 9216 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 288 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 72 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 288 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 164.2 GPixel/s | 110.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 492.5 GTexel/s | 440.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.52 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1) | 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 475 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Quad-slot |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None listed |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 850 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2019-06-02 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 2,199 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10G wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 31.52 TFLOPS is more than double the Pro Vega II's 14.09 TFLOPS, which directly explains its benchmark dominance. The A10G also has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, enabling workloads like real-time ray tracing and AI inference that the Pro Vega II cannot accelerate at all. Its single-slot design with a 150 W TDP is far more power-efficient for data center deployment, requiring only a 450 W suggested PSU versus the Pro Vega II's 850 W. The A10G's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface is also more universally compatible than Apple's proprietary MPX bus.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 32 GB of HBM2 exceeds the A10G's 24 GB by 33%, and its 825.3 GB/s bandwidth is 37.5% higher. For workloads that fit within 24 GB but are bandwidth-starved, the Pro Vega II could outperform its compute disadvantage. It also offers display outputs, including 4x Thunderbolt, making it a usable workstation GPU rather than a headless accelerator. Its higher base clock (1574 MHz vs 1320 MHz) suggests better latency characteristics for certain low-occupancy tasks, though the A10G's boost clock is nearly identical (1710 MHz vs 1720 MHz). The Pro Vega II's Metal support and Apple MPX interface make it the only choice for Mac Pro users, and its 2:1 FP16 ratio provides a more balanced half-precision option for certain scientific workloads, even if it still trails the A10G's absolute FP16 performance.