AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two workstation GPUs, with the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation dominating both shared test categories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 146,593 against AMD's 99,048, a 48% advantage that places it firmly ahead of its rival. The Vulkan results tell a similar story: NVIDIA posts 123,842 versus AMD's 99,621, a 24.3% lead. These aren't marginal victories—they represent substantial performance gaps that will manifest in real-world compute workloads.

The NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head comparisons, securing 2 wins to AMD's 0. Its average benchmark score of 135,218 across all tests dwarfs the AMD card's 109,617, a difference of roughly 23%. This consistency suggests the RTX 4000 Ada Generation isn't just faster in one API—it maintains its advantage across different rendering and compute interfaces.

Interestingly, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II does have a Metal benchmark score of 130,183, which is notably competitive with NVIDIA's OpenCL result. However, since NVIDIA doesn't have a Metal score listed, we cannot directly compare them in that API. The AMD card's best showing in a shared test is its Vulkan score of 99,621, which still trails NVIDIA's worst shared result by over 24%.

When contextualizing these scores against the broader GPU landscape, both cards sit near the top. NVIDIA ranks in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while AMD sits just one point lower at the 94th percentile. Despite this proximity in percentile ranking, the actual score gap is substantial, indicating that the top percentile band contains a wide range of performance.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational and philosophical. NVIDIA's RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter—a figure that reflects the advanced nature of the design. AMD's Radeon Pro Vega II, by contrast, uses the Vega 20 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 13,230 million transistors spread across a larger 331 mm² die, resulting in just 40.0 million transistors per square millimeter.

The compute architectures diverge sharply. NVIDIA employs Ada Lovelace architecture with 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. It also includes dedicated ray tracing cores (48) and tensor cores (192), enabling specialized workloads that AMD's card cannot accelerate through dedicated hardware. AMD's GCN 5.1 architecture provides 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but lacks RT and tensor core equivalents entirely.

Clock speeds favor AMD in raw frequency—its base clock of 1,574 MHz and boost of 1,720 MHz exceed NVIDIA's 1,500 MHz base and 2,175 MHz boost (though NVIDIA's boost is significantly higher). However, the compute throughput tells a different story. NVIDIA delivers 26.73 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double AMD's 14.09 TFLOPS. In FP16, AMD's 28.18 TFLOPS (at 2:1 ratio) edges out NVIDIA's 26.73 TFLOPS (at 1:1), but NVIDIA's 1:1 ratio means it doesn't sacrifice precision for speed.

Memory architectures represent another fundamental split. NVIDIA uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, providing 360.0 GB/s bandwidth. AMD counters with 32 GB of HBM2 on a massive 4,096-bit bus, delivering 825.3 GB/s—more than double NVIDIA's bandwidth. This memory advantage could prove decisive in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, despite NVIDIA's superior compute throughput.

# Where Each One Wins

The data suggests NVIDIA's RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in raw compute performance across both shared benchmarks. Its 48% lead in OpenCL and 24.3% lead in Vulkan indicate that for general-purpose GPU compute, CUDA-accelerated workloads, or any application leveraging its RT and tensor cores, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice. The 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 figure represents serious compute horsepower that will benefit simulation, rendering, and AI inference tasks.

AMD's Radeon Pro Vega II finds its strengths in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 32 GB of HBM2 delivering 825.3 GB/s, it offers over 60% more memory capacity and 129% more bandwidth than NVIDIA's card. For workloads that involve massive datasets that must reside in VRAM—such as large-scale 3D rendering scenes, scientific visualization, or machine learning training on huge batches—the AMD card's memory subsystem provides a tangible advantage that raw compute figures don't capture.

The AMD card also maintains a notable FP16 advantage when precision can be sacrificed: 28.18 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 26.73 TFLOPS. However, this comes with a catch—AMD achieves this at 2:1 ratio (meaning it's essentially using FP32 hardware with reduced precision), while NVIDIA's 1:1 ratio indicates dedicated FP16 hardware that doesn't compromise on throughput.

For display connectivity, AMD offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt outputs, which may appeal to Mac Pro users given its Apple MPX bus interface. NVIDIA provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more standard for PC workstations. The AMD card's 475 W TDP and 850 W suggested PSU reflect its power-hungry design, while NVIDIA's 130 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it far more energy-efficient.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation for most use cases. It wins both shared benchmarks by significant margins, delivers nearly double the FP32 performance, and does so while consuming less than a third of the power (130 W versus 475 W). Its 95th percentile ranking versus AMD's 94th further confirms its superior position in the GPU hierarchy.

However, the verdict isn't universally one-sided. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II's 32 GB memory capacity and 825.3 GB/s bandwidth make it uniquely suited for memory-bound workloads where the data footprint exceeds NVIDIA's 20 GB capacity. Its Metal benchmark score of 130,183 suggests strong performance in Apple's ecosystem, reinforced by its Apple MPX bus interface and Thunderbolt outputs.

For professionals working in Windows or Linux environments with CUDA-dependent applications, AI frameworks utilizing tensor cores, or real-time ray tracing, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the data-backed choice. Its 48% OpenCL lead alone justifies selection for compute-heavy workflows.

For Mac Pro users, those handling datasets exceeding 20 GB that must stay in VRAM, or applications optimized for Metal and HBM2 bandwidth, the Radeon Pro Vega II remains relevant despite its age. Its end-of-life status and 2,199 USD launch MSRP (stated once here as historical fact) reflect its 2019 origins, but its memory subsystem still offers capabilities NVIDIA's card cannot match.

The production status difference is telling: NVIDIA's card is Active, while AMD's is End-of-life. This suggests future driver optimizations and software support will favor NVIDIA, potentially widening the performance gap further.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 48% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II's 99,048.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No, in the two shared head-to-head benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan), NVIDIA wins both. AMD's best performance is its Metal score of 130,183, but no comparable NVIDIA Metal result exists in the data.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II provides 825.3 GB/s bandwidth with its 32 GB HBM2 memory on a 4,096-bit bus, compared to NVIDIA's 360.0 GB/s from 20 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA card has a 130 W TDP and suggests a 300 W PSU, while the AMD card has a 475 W TDP and requires an 850 W PSU—a significant difference in power requirements.

Q: Which GPU has better FP32 compute performance?

A: NVIDIA's RTX 4000 Ada Generation delivers 26.73 TFLOPS FP32, nearly double AMD's 14.09 TFLOPS.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance percentile?

A: They're close—NVIDIA is in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while AMD is in the 94th—but the actual average benchmark scores differ by about 23% in NVIDIA's favor.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation | AMD Radeon Pro Vega II |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | GCN 5.1 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 13,230 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 331 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 40.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 1574 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2175 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 160 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 825.3 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 806 MHz (1612 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | 110.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 417.6 GTexel/s | 440.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) | 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 475 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | None specified |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 850 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

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

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2019-06-02 |

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

| Average Benchmark Score | 135,218 | 109,617 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 95 | 94 |