AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs Intel Arc A770 Comparison

Intel Arc A770 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Arc A770 across every benchmark where both cards were measured. The Arc A770 wins all three head-to-head tests, with the largest margin coming in the synthetic DirectX 12 workload, where it outperforms the RX Vega 64 by 77.9 percent. The Arc A770 also holds a substantial lead in OpenCL and Vulkan compute tests, while the RX Vega 64’s only unique benchmark result comes from a Metal test, which the Intel card did not run. Looking at aggregate performance, the Arc A770 posts an average benchmark score of 68,809, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX Vega 64 averages 50,001, sitting in the 86th percentile. The gap between the two cards is not trivial; it reflects a generational shift in architecture, memory technology, and feature support, with the Intel part delivering roughly 37.6 percent higher average performance based on the recorded scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the Intel Arc A770 scores 2,969 against the RX Vega 64’s 1,669. That is a 77.9 percent advantage for Intel, meaning the Arc A770 completes the workload nearly 1.8 times faster. This test stresses modern DirectX 12 rendering paths, and the data shows the older GCN-based Vega architecture struggles to keep pace with Intel’s Xe-HPG design. The RX Vega 64’s score here is less than half of the Arc A770’s, which is a stark indicator of how far GPU architectures have progressed since Vega’s 2017 release.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Arc A770 records 109,175 points, while the RX Vega 64 manages 62,552. That translates to a 74.5 percent lead for Intel. OpenCL performance often reflects raw compute throughput and driver efficiency, and the Arc A770’s higher FP32 and FP16 rates, combined with its newer 6 nm process, give it a clear edge. The RX Vega 64’s 12.66 TFLOPS FP32 output is simply outclassed by the Arc A770’s 19.66 TFLOPS, and the benchmark results align with that specification difference.

The Vulkan test shows a narrower but still substantial gap. Intel scores 94,284, AMD scores 67,032, giving the Arc A770 a 40.7 percent win. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose hardware efficiency differences, and while the RX Vega 64 closes some of the distance compared to OpenCL, it still trails by a wide margin. The Arc A770’s support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the RX Vega 64’s Vulkan 1.3 may contribute to better driver-level optimization, though the raw compute advantage remains the dominant factor.

The RX Vega 64 does have one benchmark result the Arc A770 lacks: a Geekbench Metal score of 68,750. Since Metal is Apple’s proprietary API and the Intel card was not tested under it, this number cannot be compared directly. However, it is notably the Vega’s Metal score is lower than the Arc A770’s OpenCL and Vulkan scores, suggesting the AMD card is not competitive with Intel on any shared test.

Across the three common benchmarks, the Arc A770 wins all of them, with an average delta of roughly 64.4 percent per test. That is a comprehensive sweep, and the data leaves no ambiguity about which card delivers higher raw performance in the measured workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc A770 averages 68,809 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 averages 50,001, sitting in the 86th percentile. The Arc A770’s average is about 37.6 percent higher.

Q: How does the RX Vega 64 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX Vega 64’s average score of 50,001 puts it just 0.1 percent behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (average 49,957) and 0.5 percent ahead of the Intel Arc A550M (average 49,737). It also trails the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT by 1.9 percent (which averages 50,951) but leads the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT by 3.1 percent (which averages 48,477).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest delta appears in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the Arc A770 scores 2,969 versus the RX Vega 64’s 1,669, a 77.9 percent difference. The smallest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Arc A770 leads by 40.7 percent.

Q: Which card has more memory and what type?

A: The Intel Arc A770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 has 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, providing 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A770 doubles the capacity while also delivering higher bandwidth.

Q: What is the release date and production status for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A770 was released on October 11, 2022, and is end-of-life. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 was released on August 6, 2017, and is also end-of-life. The Arc A770 is five years newer in the database timeline.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of transistor count and die size?

A: The Arc A770 uses 21,700 million transistors on a 406 mm² die, with a transistor density of 53.4 million per mm². The RX Vega 64 uses 12,500 million transistors on a larger 495 mm² die, resulting in a density of 25.3 million per mm². Intel’s 6 nm TSMC process allows nearly double the transistor density compared to AMD’s 14 nm GlobalFoundries process.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Arc A770 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-512 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation within the Arc 7 family. It uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, which is a significant advancement over the RX Vega 64’s GCN 5.0 architecture, based on the Vega 10 chip from the Vega generation. AMD’s card relies on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, an older node that limits both clock speeds and power efficiency.

The Arc A770 packs 21,700 million transistors into a 406 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 53.4 million per square millimeter. The RX Vega 64, by contrast, has 12,500 million transistors spread across a larger 495 mm² die, yielding only 25.3 million per square millimeter. This density difference is a direct consequence of the process node gap and explains why Intel’s chip can offer higher shading unit counts, more ROPs, and dedicated ray tracing hardware while remaining smaller.

In terms of compute resources, both cards have 4,096 shading units and 256 texture mapping units. However, the RX Vega 64 has only 64 ROPs, while the Arc A770 doubles that to 128 ROPs. This affects pixel fill rates: the Arc A770 achieves 307.2 GPixel/s, whereas the RX Vega 64 manages just 98.94 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors Intel, with 614.4 GTexel/s versus 395.8 GTexel/s.

The Arc A770 introduces 32 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature the RX Vega 64 lacks entirely. This is a major architectural difference, as ray tracing workloads are increasingly common in modern games. The RX Vega 64 has no equivalent hardware, meaning it must rely on compute shaders for any ray tracing effects, which is far less efficient. The Arc A770 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the RX Vega 64 is limited to DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1. Vulkan support differs as well: the Arc A770 supports Vulkan 1.4, the RX Vega 64 supports Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Arc A770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, achieving 483.8 GB/s. While the Vega’s HBM2 bus is much wider, the total bandwidth is lower than Intel’s, and the capacity is half. The Arc A770 also has a smaller physical footprint, though the database lists no dimensions for it, while the RX Vega 64 measures 280 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.

Clock speeds reflect the process difference. The Arc A770 runs at a base clock of 2100 MHz and boosts to 2400 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The RX Vega 64 has a base clock of 1247 MHz and a boost of 1546 MHz, with memory at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). Even accounting for architectural differences, the Arc A770’s higher clocks contribute directly to its compute advantage: 19.66 TFLOPS FP32 versus 12.66 TFLOPS for the RX Vega 64, and 39.32 TFLOPS FP16 versus 25.33 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification that matters. Power draw is one notable gap: the Arc A770 has a TDP of 225 W, while the RX Vega 64 draws 295 W. Despite being the newer and faster card, the Arc A770 consumes less power, which is a direct result of the 6 nm process. The RX Vega 64 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, while the Arc A770 uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. The suggested power supply is also lower for Intel at 550 W versus 600 W for AMD.

The bus interface differs: the Arc A770 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also vary. The Arc A770 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0, while the RX Vega 64 offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Intel card supports newer display standards, which matters for high refresh rate and high resolution monitors.

Memory specifications are starkly different, as covered above: 16 GB GDDR6 versus 8 GB HBM2, with bandwidths of 512.0 GB/s and 483.8 GB/s respectively. The Arc A770 also has double the ROPs (128 versus 64) and includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the RX Vega 64 lacks. The FP32 and FP16 throughput values favor Intel by roughly 55 percent and 55 percent respectively, based on the recorded figures.

The RX Vega 64 has a launch MSRP of 499 USD, while the Arc A770 has a launch MSRP of 329 USD. Both cards are end-of-life in the database. The Arc A770’s predecessor is listed as Xe Graphics and its successor as Battlemage, while the RX Vega 64’s predecessor is Polaris and its successor is Navi.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Arc A770 outperforms the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 in every test where both were measured. The Arc A770 wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 40.7 percent in Vulkan to 77.9 percent in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. Its average benchmark score of 68,809 places it in the 90th percentile, while the RX Vega 64’s 50,001 sits in the 86th percentile. The Arc A770 also offers double the memory (16 GB versus 8 GB), higher bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 483.8 GB/s), dedicated ray tracing hardware, newer API support, and lower power consumption (225 W versus 295 W). The RX Vega 64’s only advantage lies in its Metal benchmark score of 68,750, which cannot be compared to the Intel card since no equivalent test exists in the data. Given the consistent performance lead, the Arc A770 is the superior choice for any workload covered by these benchmarks. The RX Vega 64 remains a functional card, but its 2017 architecture is outclassed by the 2022 Intel part across every measurable dimension.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A770 wins in every scenario represented by the recorded benchmarks. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it is faster by 77.9 percent, making it the clear pick for DirectX 12 gaming workloads that stress modern rendering pipelines. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 74.5 percent, which translates to compute-heavy tasks such as general-purpose GPU compute, scientific workloads, and any application that leverages OpenCL. In Geekbench Vulkan, it wins by 40.7 percent, indicating better performance in Vulkan-based games and applications that take advantage of this lower-level API.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64’s only recorded win is in the Geekbench Metal benchmark, where it scores 68,750. However, since the Arc A770 was not tested in Metal, this does not constitute a head-to-head victory. Within the shared test set, the RX Vega 64 has zero wins. For users on Apple platforms that rely on Metal, the RX Vega 64 may be the only option between these two cards, but for any other workload, the data points exclusively to the Arc A770. The RX Vega 64 also has a larger physical footprint (280 mm length) and higher power draw, but these are not performance advantages. In summary, the Arc A770 is the default choice for DirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads, while the RX Vega 64 only matters in Metal-specific environments where the Intel card has no recorded data.