AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data gives a clear, if not entirely uniform, picture of the NVIDIA A2 versus the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH. In the two tracked Geekbench sessions, the NVIDIA A2 wins both, but the margins reveal different strengths. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A2 posts a score of 35,357 against 27,125 for the Vega M GH, a decisive 30.3% advantage. This is the largest single gap in the comparison and suggests a significant lead in raw compute throughput for workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The Vulkan results are notably closer. The NVIDIA A2 scores 34,023, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH reaches 31,268. Here, the A2's lead shrinks to 8.8%. This narrower delta implies that the Vega M GH is comparatively more competitive in graphics-oriented or Vulkan-optimized tasks, even if it still trails. The data indicates that the A2's dominance is not uniform across all API types; its strongest showing is in compute-heavy OpenCL, while its Vulkan advantage is more modest.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The A2's average sits at 34,690, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Vega M GH averages 29,197, which puts it in the 74th percentile. The percentage-point difference in percentile ranking, 79 versus 74, is smaller than the raw score gap might suggest, indicating that the field of GPUs is tightly packed at these performance levels.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides context for their absolute performance. The A2's closest competitor is the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB, which averages 34,561, a mere 0.4% behind. The AMD Radeon HD 7970 is also nearly identical at 34,541, again a 0.4% difference. The A2 also edges out the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, a 1% gap) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, a 1.4% gap). These are tight margins, meaning the A2 is at the center of a dense cluster of comparable performers.

For the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, the nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W8000, which averages 29,211, showing a 0% delta. The Intel Arc A370M follows at 29,175, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Radeon RX 470 scores 28,996, a 0.7% gap, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M trails at 28,874, a 1.1% difference. The Vega M GH sits in its own dense cluster, but this cluster is roughly 16% lower in average score than the A2's cluster. The data positions the A2 as a mid-range performer in its generation, while the Vega M GH is a slightly lower-tier part.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark wins break down simply: the NVIDIA A2 wins both recorded tests, giving it 2 wins and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH 0 wins. However, the nature of those wins points to different use-case scenarios.

The A2's 30.3% lead in OpenCL is its defining strength. This is a compute-oriented API, and the large delta suggests the A2 is better suited for tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU compute, such as data processing, scientific simulations, or rendering workloads that are not purely graphics-based. The A2's architecture, with its dedicated tensor cores and RT cores, is likely a factor here, as these features can accelerate specific compute tasks. The data supports the A2 as the choice for compute-heavy applications.

The Vulkan test is where the Vega M GH shows its relative resilience. An 8.8% deficit is far from a rout. For workloads that are primarily graphics-driven, such as gaming or real-time rendering via Vulkan, the Vega M GH is less disadvantaged. Its higher pixel rate (76.16 GPixel/s versus 56.64 GPixel/s) and texture rate (114.2 GTexel/s versus 70.80 GTexel/s) suggest that in raw fill-rate-limited scenarios, it could be competitive. The A2 still wins, but the margin is small enough that the Vega M GH could be considered adequate for less demanding graphical tasks.

The average scores also hint at where each card sits in the broader ecosystem. The A2's 79th percentile ranking places it above the majority of recorded GPUs, making it a solid all-rounder with a skew toward compute. The Vega M GH's 74th percentile is still above average, but its lower raw scores and its proximity to parts like the Intel Arc A370M (0.1% delta) indicate it is a more entry-level or integrated-class performer. The Vega M GH is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) per the database, which explains its lower power ceiling and its design for portable devices.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is substantial. The NVIDIA A2 is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 8,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The A2 is a discrete, single-slot card with a 60 W TDP and no power connectors, drawing power directly from the PCIe slot. Its memory subsystem uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture, with the Polaris 22 chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 5,000 million transistors on a slightly larger 208 mm² die, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 24.0 million per square millimeter. This is an integrated processor, classified as "IGP" in the database, designed for portable devices. It has a higher TDP of 100 W but no slot width or bus interface in the traditional sense. Its memory is 4 GB of HBM2 on a very wide 1024-bit bus, which gives it 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, slightly higher than the A2's.

The compute resources differ in configuration. The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Vega M GH has more shading units at 1,536, more TMUs at 96, and double the ROPs at 64. This explains the Vega M GH's higher pixel and texture rates. However, the A2's clock speeds are much higher: a base of 1,440 MHz and a boost of 1,770 MHz, versus the Vega M GH's base of 1,063 MHz and boost of 1,190 MHz. The A2's higher clocks, combined with its Ampere architecture, allow it to achieve 4.531 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 3.656 TFLOPS for the Vega M GH.

The A2 also brings dedicated acceleration hardware that the Vega M GH lacks entirely. The A2 includes 10 RT cores for ray tracing and 40 tensor cores for AI workloads. The Vega M GH has no RT cores or tensor cores, as its GCN 4.0 architecture predates these features. This is a critical functional difference. The A2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega M GH only supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The A2 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only accelerator, while the Vega M GH's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host device for display.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has a higher average score of 34,690, compared to 29,197 for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH. This places the A2 in the 79th percentile of all GPUs, while the Vega M GH sits in the 74th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Vulkan test?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the NVIDIA A2 scores 34,023, and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH scores 31,268. The A2 wins by 8.8%, a much smaller margin than the OpenCL test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The database lists no RT cores and no tensor cores for the Vega M GH. The NVIDIA A2, in contrast, has 10 RT cores and 40 tensor cores.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH has 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has a boost clock of 1,770 MHz. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH has a boost clock of 1,190 MHz.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The NVIDIA A2, built on an 8 nm process, has a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, on a 14 nm process, has a density of 24.0 million per square millimeter.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The manufacturing process is a key split: the A2 uses an 8 nm node from Samsung, while the Vega M GH uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries. The A2's die is 200 mm², slightly smaller than the Vega M GH's 208 mm², but the A2 packs far more transistors (8,700 million versus 5,000 million), leading to a much higher transistor density.

Clock speeds are significantly different. The A2's base clock is 1,440 MHz, boosting to 1,770 MHz. The Vega M GH's base is 1,063 MHz, boosting to 1,190 MHz. The memory clocks also differ: the A2 runs at 1,563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the Vega M GH runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective).

Memory capacity is a major divergence: 16 GB of GDDR6 for the A2 versus 4 GB of HBM2 for the Vega M GH. The bus widths are 128-bit for the A2 and 1024-bit for the Vega M GH. Despite the massive width difference, the bandwidth is nearly identical, at 200.1 GB/s for the A2 and 204.8 GB/s for the Vega M GH.

Compute unit counts vary. The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Vega M GH has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Vega M GH has more of each, but its lower clocks result in lower total throughput: 76.16 GPixel/s and 114.2 GTexel/s for the Vega M GH, versus 56.64 GPixel/s and 70.80 GTexel/s for the A2. The FP32 compute rating is higher for the A2 at 4.531 TFLOPS, versus 3.656 TFLOPS for the Vega M GH.

Power and form factor are fundamentally different. The A2 is a discrete, single-slot card with a 60 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The Vega M GH is an IGP with a 100 W TDP, no traditional slot width, and no PSU requirement listed. The A2 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the Vega M GH uses "IGP" as its bus interface. The A2 has no display outputs, while the Vega M GH's outputs are portable-device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner in the NVIDIA A2, but the choice depends heavily on the intended use case. For compute-intensive tasks, such as OpenCL workloads, the A2 is the superior part. Its 30.3% lead in OpenCL and higher FP32 throughput (4.531 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS) make it the stronger accelerator for general-purpose GPU computing. The presence of RT cores and tensor cores further extends its capability into ray tracing and AI inference, areas where the Vega M GH has no hardware support.

For graphics-oriented tasks, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is less decisively beaten. Its 8.8% Vulkan deficit is manageable, and its higher pixel and texture rates suggest it can handle fill-rate-bound scenarios well. However, it still loses the Vulkan test outright. The Vega M GH's advantage lies in its integrated nature, designed for portable devices, where its 100 W TDP and HBM2 memory on a wide bus provide a compact solution. But its 4 GB memory capacity is a limitation for modern workloads.

The A2's 79th percentile ranking versus the Vega M GH's 74th percentile confirms the A2 as the higher-performing part overall. The A2's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB (0.4% delta), are all within a tight band, indicating that this performance tier is crowded. The Vega M GH's rivals, like the AMD FirePro W8000 (0% delta), are similarly clustered but at a lower absolute level.

In practical terms, the NVIDIA A2 is the choice for users who need a low-power, single-slot compute accelerator with extensive memory and modern feature support. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is the choice for portable, integrated systems where a discrete card is impossible, and where the workload is more graphics-centric than compute-centric. The benchmark data does not support choosing the Vega M GH for compute, but it remains a viable option for light graphics in a constrained form factor. The A2 wins on raw performance, feature set, and compute capability, making it the definitive pick from this comparison.