AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 represent two vastly different approaches to graphics processing, separated by over two and a half years of technological advancement and designed for entirely different form factors. The Vega M GH is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) built for portable devices, while the RTX 3090 is a triple-slot, 350 W desktop behemoth. Benchmark data shows the RTX 3090 dominating in raw compute, but the comparison reveals more than just a performance gap; it highlights fundamental architectural and generational divides.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH has a higher average benchmark score of 29,197 compared to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090's 27,565. This is surprising given the RTX 3090's much larger silicon and power envelope, but it reflects the specific benchmark suites used.

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is overwhelmingly faster, scoring 172,758 versus the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH's 27,125. This represents a delta of -84.3% for the AMD part, indicating the RTX 3090 delivers over six times the raw compute performance in this test.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RTX 3090 also wins in Vulkan, scoring 53,927 against the Vega M GH's 31,268. The delta is -42%, meaning the NVIDIA card is roughly 72% faster in this API workload.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH sits close to the AMD FirePro W8000 (29,211, 0% delta) and Intel Arc A370M (29,175, 0.1% delta). The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839, -1% delta) and AMD Radeon RX 7800M (27,883, -1.1% delta).

Q: What are the production statuses of these two products?

A: Both the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 are listed as "End-of-life" products. The Vega M GH was released in January 2018, while the RTX 3090 came later in August 2020.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same API levels?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 supports a higher feature set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and the newer Vulkan 1.4 specification.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, nodes, and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH utilizes the Polaris 22 chip built on the older GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This chip contains 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.0 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 uses the GA102 chip with the newer Ampere architecture, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This massive die measures 628 mm² and houses 28,300 million transistors, achieving a density of 45.1 million per mm².

The execution resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Vega M GH has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). The RTX 3090 features 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Crucially, the NVIDIA part includes dedicated hardware that the AMD part lacks entirely: 82 RT cores for ray tracing and 328 tensor cores for AI acceleration. The Vega M GH has no equivalent hardware, meaning it cannot accelerate ray tracing or tensor operations in hardware.

Memory subsystems are also starkly different. The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a 1024-bit bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective). The RTX 3090 employs 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 936.2 GB/s at 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective). This gives the RTX 3090 roughly 4.6 times the memory bandwidth and six times the capacity.

Compute throughput shows the scale of the gap: the Vega M GH produces 3.656 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1) performance, while the RTX 3090 delivers 35.58 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16, a roughly 9.7x advantage. Pixel and texture rates follow suit: 76.16 GPixel/s vs 189.8 GPixel/s, and 114.2 GTexel/s vs 556.0 GTexel/s, respectively. The power envelopes reflect this divergence, with the Vega M GH rated at 100 W TDP and the RTX 3090 at 350 W TDP, with the latter requiring a 750 W suggested PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to two synthetic tests, both of which are won decisively by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 3090 scores 172,758 against the Vega M GH's 27,125, a delta of -84.3% for the AMD part. This massive gap aligns with the raw FP32 throughput difference; the RTX 3090's 35.58 TFLOPS dwarfs the Vega M GH's 3.656 TFLOPS, and OpenCL tends to scale well with raw shader count and memory bandwidth.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a narrower but still significant gap. The RTX 3090 scores 53,927 while the Vega M GH scores 31,268, a delta of -42%. This smaller delta is notable. Vulkan workloads can sometimes benefit from lower driver overhead and different scheduling characteristics. The Vega M GH's HBM2 memory, while lower in total bandwidth, offers a wide 1024-bit bus which may help in certain access patterns. Still, the RTX 3090 retains a clear 72% advantage.

The aggregate average benchmark score tells a different story. The Vega M GH's average of 29,197 actually exceeds the RTX 3090's 27,565. This is because the average includes a broader set of tests beyond the two head-to-head comparisons. The RTX 3090's full benchmark suite includes several Passmark tests (DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute) where its scores are relatively low (ranging from 110 to 1,063 for G2D), pulling its average down. The Vega M GH only has two benchmarks recorded, both of which are relatively high, skewing its average upward. This illustrates that a single average score can be misleading without understanding the underlying test distribution.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. For any workload that leverages raw compute, modern API features, or ray tracing, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 is the only choice. Its 9.7x advantage in FP32 throughput, 4.6x memory bandwidth, and dedicated RT and tensor cores make it categorically superior for demanding 3D rendering, AI inference, and high-resolution gaming. The 84.3% lead in OpenCL and 42% lead in Vulkan confirm this dominance in head-to-head testing.

However, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is not without its own context. It is an integrated GPU designed for portable devices, with a 100 W TDP and a slot width of "IGP" (integrated graphics processor). Its form factor, display outputs, and power connectors are all "Portable Device Dependent." For a system where the GPU must be embedded and power-efficient, the Vega M GH offers a respectable level of performance, sitting in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 29,197 is competitive with discrete mobile parts like the Intel Arc A370M and even the AMD Radeon RX 6800M, per the nearestRivals data.

The choice depends entirely on the target platform. If the requirement is a desktop workstation or gaming rig with space and power headroom, the RTX 3090 wins on every performance metric measured. If the requirement is a compact, integrated solution for a laptop or small form-factor device, the Vega M GH is the only viable option of the two, despite its significant performance deficit. The RTX 3090's 350 W TDP and triple-slot cooler would be impossible to integrate into such a chassis.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 |

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

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1063 MHz | 1395 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1190 MHz | 1695 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) | 1219 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus Width | 1024 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 936.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 10496 |

| TMUs | 96 | 328 |

| ROPs | 64 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 0 | 82 |

| Tensor Cores | 0 | 328 |

| Pixel Rate | 76.16 GPixel/s | 189.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 114.2 GTexel/s | 556.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.656 TFLOPS | 35.58 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 3.656 TFLOPS (1:1) | 35.58 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 350 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | None (Portable Device Dependent) | 1x 12-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 750 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | Not specified | 336 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm |

| Release Date | 2018-01-31 | 2020-08-31 |

| Predecessor | None | GeForce 20 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 40 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,499 USD |