AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 and NVIDIA RTX A2000 represent two distinct approaches to GPU design separated by four years of architectural evolution. The Vega 64, built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, is a high-power, large-die consumer flagship from 2017, while the RTX A2000 is a 70 W workstation adapter on Samsung's 8 nm node, released in 2021. Benchmark data shows the Vega 64 holds a 24.1% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yet the RTX A2000 counters with superior Geekbench scores in OpenCL and Vulkan. The average benchmark scores—50001 for the Vega 64 versus 46043 for the RTX A2000—place them in the 86th and 85th percentiles of all GPUs respectively, making this a contest between raw throughput and modern feature efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 wins decisively, scoring 1669 against the NVIDIA RTX A2000's 1345, a delta of 24.1% in favor of the AMD card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the winner, scoring 67695 compared to the Vega 64's 62552. This represents a 7.6% advantage for the RTX A2000.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores between the two GPUs?

A: The Vega 64 has an average benchmark score of 50001, which is 8.6% higher than the RTX A2000's 46043. The Vega 64 sits at the 86th percentile while the RTX A2000 is at the 85th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the closest competitors to the RTX A2000 based on average score?

A: The nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation with an average score of 45972 (0.2% difference), the Intel Arc A730M at 45592 (1% difference), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46601 (-1.2% difference).

Q: Does the RTX A2000 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores as part of its Ampere architecture, whereas the Vega 64 has no dedicated RT cores listed in its specifications.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 features 483.8 GB/s of bandwidth from its 8 GB HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, while the RTX A2000 offers 288.0 GB/s from 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is evident from the process and die characteristics. The Vega 64 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries with a massive 495 mm² die containing 12,500 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the RTX A2000 uses Samsung's 8 nm node with a 276 mm² die holding 12,000 million transistors, achieving a much higher density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. This density advantage allows the smaller RTX A2000 to pack nearly the same transistor count into roughly half the silicon area.

The Vega 64 is built on AMD's GCN 5.0 architecture with 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. Its compute capabilities are substantial, with 12.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 25.33 TFLOPS of FP16 via a 2:1 ratio. The RTX A2000, using the Ampere architecture, has fewer shading units at 3328, along with 104 TMUs and 48 ROPs. Its FP32 output is 7.987 TFLOPS, with identical FP16 performance at 7.987 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The Ampere chip also integrates 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Vega 64's spec sheet.

Memory architecture differs completely. The Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s bandwidth with memory clocked at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective). The RTX A2000 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The Vega 64's memory subsystem offers 68% more bandwidth, which supports its higher pixel rate of 98.94 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s for the RTX A2000. Texture rates also favor the AMD card at 395.8 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s.

Power and interface characteristics are starkly opposed. The Vega 64 draws 295 W with dual 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W recommended PSU, while the RTX A2000 consumes just 70 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RTX A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. API support also differs: the Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the RTX A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark produces the most lopsided result in this comparison. The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 scores 1669, defeating the NVIDIA RTX A2000's 1345 by a substantial 24.1% margin. This is the Vega 64's single victory in the head-to-head suite, and it is a decisive one. The margin suggests that the Vega 64's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth provide a meaningful advantage in this particular DX12 workload, despite the RTX A2000's newer architecture and dedicated hardware features.

The Geekbench OpenCL test flips the result in favor of the RTX A2000, which scores 67695 against the Vega 64's 62552. The 7.6% difference is notable because OpenCL workloads often scale with raw compute throughput, where the Vega 64's 12.66 TFLOPS should theoretically dominate the RTX A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS. The fact that the RTX A2000 wins despite a 58.5% FP32 deficit indicates that driver optimization or architectural efficiency plays a significant role in this synthetic workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan benchmark narrows the gap further. The RTX A2000 scores 69089 while the Vega 64 scores 67032, a margin of only 3% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This smaller delta suggests that Vulkan implementation on the older GCN architecture is more competitive, though still trailing the Ampere design. The Vega 64's Vulkan score of 67032 is actually higher than its OpenCL score of 62552, showing relative strength in this API, whereas the RTX A2000's scores are more consistent between 67695 and 69089.

Across the three tests, the RTX A2000 wins two while the Vega 64 takes one. However, the magnitude of the Vega 64's 24.1% win in Steel Nomad exceeds the combined margins of the RTX A2000's two wins (7.6% and 3%). The average benchmark score still favors the Vega 64 at 50001 versus 46043, an 8.6% overall advantage. This places the Vega 64 in the 86th percentile versus the RTX A2000's 85th percentile, making them adjacent in the overall performance ranking.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 | NVIDIA RTX A2000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 12,500 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 495 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.3M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1247 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1546 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 2048 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 483.8 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4096 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 256 | 104 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT Cores | None | 26 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 104 |

| FP32 Performance | 12.66 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 98.94 GPixel/s | 57.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 395.8 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 295 W | 70 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Length | 280 mm | 167 mm |

| Height | 111 mm | 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2017-08-06 | 2021-08-09 |

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 is the pick for users prioritizing raw rasterization performance in DX12 workloads, based on its 24.1% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and higher average benchmark score of 50001. Its superior memory bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s and shading unit count of 4096 provide a tangible advantage in scenarios that stress memory throughput and pixel fill rate. The Vega 64 also offers double the memory capacity at 8 GB versus 6 GB, which can matter for texture-heavy applications. However, this performance comes with a 295 W TDP and a length of 280 mm, requiring a robust power supply and a large chassis. Its launch MSRP was 499 USD.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the rational choice for compact workstations and power-constrained environments. Its 70 W TDP with no external power connectors and 167 mm length make it far easier to integrate into small form factor systems. Despite lower raw compute numbers, it wins in Geekbench OpenCL by 7.6% and Vulkan by 3%, indicating more efficient execution per FLOP. The inclusion of 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores provides hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI inference tasks that the Vega 64 cannot perform at all. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support also ensure broader API compatibility for modern software. Its launch MSRP was 449 USD.

The data points to a split decision based on use case. If the workload is purely about peak DX12 raster performance and memory bandwidth, the Vega 64's 24.1% Steel Nomad advantage and 8.6% higher average score make it the stronger performer. If the workload involves ray tracing, tensor operations, or requires minimal power draw, the RTX A2000's dedicated hardware and 70 W envelope are decisive. The RTX A2000's nearest rival in average score is the RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 0.2% difference, while the Vega 64 sits 1.9% below the RX 6900 XT, contextualizing both within their respective performance tiers. Neither card is a clear overall winner; the choice hinges on whether one values the Vega 64's brute force or the RTX A2000's efficiency and modern features.