AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 vs Intel Arc Pro A30M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include any direct head-to-head benchmark runs between the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and the Intel Arc Pro A30M. The database shows zero shared tests, with no wins recorded for either product in a direct comparison. Instead, each card has its own separate benchmark results, which must be analyzed through their aggregate scores and relative standing against other GPUs.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 posts an average benchmark score of 37507, placing it at the 81st percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals bracket this result tightly: the NVIDIA Tesla P4 scores 37628, a delta of -0.3% relative to the Vega 56, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 scores 37648, a delta of -0.4%. On the other side, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 trails at 37157, a delta of 0.9%, meaning the Vega 56 sits ahead of that card by nearly a full percentage point. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile leads the group at 38135, a delta of -1.6% from the Vega 56. These numbers indicate that the Vega 56 is positioned in a crowded performance band, essentially matching the Tesla P4 and RTX 4070 while slightly trailing the RTX 4080 Mobile.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M records an average benchmark score of 31894, placing it at the 76th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals show a similar clustering: the NVIDIA TITAN RTX scores 31676, a delta of 0.7% relative to the A30M, while the AMD Radeon Pro 570X scores 32176, a delta of -0.9%. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell scores 31532, a delta of 1.1%, and the AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32388, a delta of -1.5%. The A30M sits in the middle of this group, slightly ahead of the TITAN RTX and RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell, while slightly behind the Radeon Pro 570X and FirePro S10000.

Comparing the two cards directly through their aggregate scores, the Vega 56's 37507 average is approximately 17.6% higher than the A30M's 31894. This is a substantial margin, but the two products target different segments: the Vega 56 is a desktop enthusiast card from 2017, while the A30M is a mobile professional solution from 2022. The percentile gap is narrower, with the Vega 56 at 81 versus the A30M at 76, indicating that both cards sit in the upper quartile of all GPUs but the Vega 56 holds a clear edge in raw compute throughput.

Individual benchmark tests further illustrate the gap. The Vega 56 scores 1501 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 73512 in Geekbench Metal. The A30M has no equivalent tests in the database, only a Geekbench OpenCL score of 31894. The Metal score for the Vega 56 is more than twice the OpenCL score of the A30M, though these are different APIs and not directly comparable. The absence of shared tests means any head-to-head conclusion must rely on the aggregate averages and percentile ranks, which consistently favor the Vega 56.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 records an average benchmark score of 37507, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M scores 31894. The Vega 56 leads by roughly 17.6% in aggregate performance.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The Vega 56 sits at the 81st percentile, while the A30M sits at the 76th percentile. Both are in the upper quartile, but the Vega 56 ranks higher overall.

Q: What is the closest rival to each card?

A: For the Vega 56, the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37648) are the nearest, with deltas of -0.3% and -0.4% respectively. For the A30M, the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31676) is closest with a delta of 0.7%, followed by the AMD Radeon Pro 570X (32176) at -0.9%.

Q: Does the A30M outperform any of its nearest rivals?

A: Yes. The A30M scores 31894, which is higher than the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31676 (delta 0.7%) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31532 (delta 1.1%). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro 570X and AMD FirePro S10000.

Q: Does the Vega 56 outperform all of its nearest rivals?

A: No. The Vega 56 beats the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 (37157, delta 0.9%), but trails the NVIDIA Tesla P4, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (38135, delta -1.6%).

Q: What individual benchmark tests are available for each card?

A: The Vega 56 has two recorded tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1501) and Geekbench Metal (73512). The A30M has one recorded test: Geekbench OpenCL (31894). There are no shared tests between the two.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 uses the Vega 10 chip with a GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip with a Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 6 nm, which directly impacts transistor density.

The Vega 56 packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The A30M has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.9 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser chip gives the A30M a manufacturing advantage, but the Vega 56's larger chip provides more raw resources.

Compute resources differ sharply. The Vega 56 has 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The A30M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Vega 56 also leads in pixel rate (94.14 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s) and texture rate (329.5 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s). Floating point performance shows the same pattern: the Vega 56 delivers 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.09 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the A30M delivers 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Vega 56 is roughly 2.6 times faster in FP32 throughput.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The A30M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s. The Vega 56 has four times the bus width and more than three times the bandwidth. Memory clock rates also differ: the Vega 56 runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), while the A30M runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The A30M's faster per-pin speed does not compensate for its narrow bus.

Feature support shows generational differences. The A30M includes 8 ray tracing cores, which the Vega 56 lacks entirely. The A30M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Vega 56 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, but the A30M lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Vega 56 lists Vulkan 1.3. The A30M also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Vega 56 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Power and physical characteristics differ as expected for desktop versus mobile parts. The Vega 56 has a TDP of 210 W, requires dual-slot cooling, and uses 2x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The A30M has a TDP of 50 W, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, reflecting its mobile design. The Vega 56 measures 280 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width; the A30M has no listed dimensions.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 holds a substantial aggregate lead over the Intel Arc Pro A30M, with an average benchmark score of 37507 versus 31894, an advantage of roughly 17.6%. The percentile ranks confirm this: 81st for the Vega 56 versus 76th for the A30M. In every compute metric recorded, the Vega 56 dominates, including shading units (3584 versus 1024), texture rate (329.5 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s), pixel rate (94.14 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s), and FP32 throughput (10.54 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS). Memory bandwidth is also lopsided at 409.6 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

However, the A30M is not without its own advantages. It is built on a newer 6 nm process with higher transistor density (45.9M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm²). It includes 8 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and lists Vulkan 1.4 support. Its TDP is 50 W versus 210 W, making it far more power-efficient on paper, though the database provides no direct efficiency benchmark. The A30M also has a faster memory clock (2000 MHz versus 800 MHz), though the Vega 56's wider bus negates this in practical bandwidth.

Who should pick which? Users prioritizing raw compute, memory bandwidth, and higher aggregate scores should choose the Vega 56. Its performance class, as measured by nearest rivals, places it alongside the NVIDIA Tesla P4 and GeForce RTX 4070, which are serious desktop cards. Users needing ray tracing, modern API support, and low power draw in a mobile form factor should choose the A30M. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA TITAN RTX, a high-end card from a previous generation, suggesting respectable performance for its class.

The Vega 56 is end-of-life, as is the A30M. The Vega 56 launched in August 2017 with a launch MSRP of 399 USD. The A30M launched in August 2022 with no recorded MSRP. Both are discontinued, so availability and driver support are external considerations not covered by the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is 14 nm for the Vega 56 and 6 nm for the A30M. Transistor count is 12,500 million versus 7,200 million. Die size is 495 mm² versus 157 mm². Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² versus 45.9M per mm².

Clock speeds: the Vega 56 has a base clock of 1156 MHz and a boost clock of 1471 MHz, with memory at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). The A30M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The A30M runs faster in raw clocks, but the Vega 56 compensates with more compute units.

Memory: 8 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth for the Vega 56; 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth for the A30M.

Compute units: the Vega 56 has 3584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A30M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The A30M has 8 ray tracing cores; the Vega 56 has none.

Rates: pixel rate is 94.14 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 329.5 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 10.54 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 is 21.09 TFLOPS versus 8.192 TFLOPS.

Power: TDP is 210 W versus 50 W. The Vega 56 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors and suggests a 550 W PSU; the A30M has no connectors and no PSU suggestion. Slot width is dual-slot for the Vega 56; not listed for the A30M.

Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Vega 56; PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A30M. Display outputs: the Vega 56 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a; the A30M's outputs are portable device dependent.

APIs: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL 4.6 for both. Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.4.

Physical dimensions: the Vega 56 is 280 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The A30M has no listed dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 wins in raw performance categories. Its aggregate score of 37507 puts it 17.6% ahead of the A30M. It wins in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, FP16, memory size, memory bus width, and memory bandwidth. For compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, simulation, or large dataset processing, the Vega 56 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070, a modern desktop card, which indicates the Vega 56 still competes at a high level despite its age.

The Intel Arc Pro A30M wins in efficiency and modern features. Its 6 nm process and 50 W TDP contrast sharply with the Vega 56's 14 nm and 210 W. The A30M has a higher transistor density (45.9M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm²), faster base and boost clocks (1500 MHz and 2000 MHz versus 1156 MHz and 1471 MHz), and faster memory clock (2000 MHz versus 800 MHz). It includes 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, features the Vega 56 lacks. For workloads that benefit from ray tracing, modern API features, or low power consumption in a mobile chassis, the A30M is the better fit.

The use-case split is clear. Desktop users with power budget to spare and a need for maximum compute throughput should select the Vega 56. Mobile users or those in constrained environments who prioritize power efficiency, ray tracing support, and the latest API standards should select the A30M. The Vega 56's higher percentile rank (81 versus 76) and higher aggregate score make it the stronger overall performer, but the A30M's architectural advantages in process technology and feature set make it a compelling choice for specific professional mobile workloads.