AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two GPUs clearly. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with an average benchmark score of 34207 versus 29197 for the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH, a lead of roughly 17%. The RTX A1000 also sits at the 79th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Vega M GH sits at the 74th percentile.

For users selecting between these two, the choice depends on the workload and platform constraints. The RTX A1000 is the stronger option for compute-heavy tasks, ray-traced workloads, and applications that leverage NVIDIA's dedicated RT and tensor cores. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory doubles the Vega M GH's 4 GB HBM2 capacity, which matters for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures. The A1000 is also the only one of the two with active production status, meaning it remains a current product.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH is an integrated graphics processor, built into a host device, with end-of-life status. Its advantage lies in its form factor: it requires no slot, no power connectors, and no separate cooling solution. It also offers higher raw pixel throughput (76.16 GPixel/s versus 46.78 GPixel/s) and higher texture rate (114.2 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s), which can benefit certain rasterization-bound scenarios. However, its lower FP32 throughput (3.656 TFLOPS versus 6.737 TFLOPS) and lack of dedicated ray tracing or tensor hardware put it at a clear disadvantage in modern compute and graphics APIs.

The verdict from the data: the RTX A1000 is the superior discrete solution for professional workstations, while the Vega M GH only makes sense when the integration into a portable device is the primary requirement and performance is secondary.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107 chip produced on Samsung's 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture, with the Polaris 22 chip produced on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It packs 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, for a density of 24.0 million per square millimeter.

Core configuration differs substantially. The RTX A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, 32 raster operation units, 18 ray tracing cores, and 72 tensor cores. The Vega M GH has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The higher TMU and ROP counts on the AMD part explain its advantage in pixel and texture fill rates despite the lower shader count.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The Vega M GH runs at a higher base clock (1063 MHz versus 727 MHz) and a lower boost clock (1190 MHz versus 1462 MHz). The RTX A1000's higher boost clock, combined with its larger shader array, produces 6.737 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the Vega M GH's 3.656 TFLOPS. Both GPUs offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The RTX A1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega M GH uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a massive 1024-bit bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s. The AMD part has slightly higher bandwidth, but half the capacity.

Feature support also diverges. The RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, and includes PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity. The Vega M GH supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6, with an integrated graphics interface (IGP) rather than a PCIe slot. Power consumption differs sharply: the RTX A1000 is rated at 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Vega M GH is rated at 100 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results show the RTX A1000 winning both recorded comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A1000 scores 52078 against 27125 for the Vega M GH, a 92% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A1000 scores 49574 against 31268, a 58.5% advantage. These are the only two direct comparisons in the database, and the A1000 wins both.

The RTX A1000 also holds advantages in FP32 compute, memory capacity, and feature support. Its 6.737 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is 84% higher than the Vega M GH's 3.656 TFLOPS. Its 8 GB memory capacity is double the Vega M GH's 4 GB. Its 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the Vega M GH cannot accelerate. The A1000's 72 TMUs are fewer than the Vega M GH's 96, but its higher boost clock and shader count compensate in most scenarios.

The Vega M GH wins in specific rasterization metrics. Its pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s exceeds the A1000's 46.78 GPixel/s by 63%. Its texture rate of 114.2 GTexel/s exceeds the A1000's 105.3 GTexel/s by 8.5%. Its memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s exceeds the A1000's 192.0 GB/s by 6.7%. These metrics suggest the Vega M GH can hold its own in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rasterization without heavy shader work.

The Vega M GH also has a form-factor advantage. As an IGP, it requires no slot, no cooling solution, and no external power connectors. It is designed for portable devices where space and power are constrained. The RTX A1000, by contrast, is a single-slot discrete card measuring 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The production status difference is notable. The RTX A1000 remains active, while the Vega M GH is end-of-life. This affects long-term driver support and availability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000. It delivers 6.737 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH delivers 3.656 TFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A1000 scores 52078 versus 27125, a 92% lead.

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

A: No. The Vega M GH has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A1000, in contrast, has 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The Vega M GH has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus. The Vega M GH has higher bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s, but half the capacity.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in power consumption?

A: No. The RTX A1000 is rated at 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Vega M GH is rated at 100 W TDP and is an integrated processor with no separate power connectors.

Q: Which GPU is better for portable devices?

A: The Vega M GH, as an IGP with no slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The RTX A1000 is a single-slot discrete card requiring PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The RTX A1000 has an average benchmark score of 34207, placing it at the 79th percentile of all GPUs. The Vega M GH has an average score of 29197, placing it at the 74th percentile.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GH still in production?

A: No. Its production status is end-of-life. The RTX A1000 is listed as active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins both decisively.

The first comparison is Geekbench OpenCL. The RTX A1000 scores 52078, while the Vega M GH scores 27125. This is a 92% advantage for the A1000, nearly double the AMD part's score. The gap reflects the A1000's larger shader count (2304 versus 1536), higher boost clock (1462 MHz versus 1190 MHz), and more than double the FP32 throughput. OpenCL workloads that scale with raw compute throughput will strongly favor the A1000.

The second comparison is Geekbench Vulkan. The RTX A1000 scores 49574, while the Vega M GH scores 31268, a 58.5% advantage. The smaller margin in Vulkan compared to OpenCL suggests the Vega M GH's higher pixel and texture rates partially offset the A1000's compute advantage in graphics-oriented workloads. The Vega M GH's 64 ROPs and 96 TMUs, combined with its 204.8 GB/s HBM2 bandwidth, help it close some of the gap in rasterization-heavy scenes.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides additional context. The RTX A1000's average score of 34207 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34154) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34133), while sitting 0.4% behind the NVIDIA TITAN V (34355) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33997). This places the A1000 in a tight cluster of mid-range to high-end GPUs, where small percentage differences separate performance tiers.

The Vega M GH's average score of 29197 places it essentially level with the AMD FirePro W8000 (29211, 0% delta), 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A370M (29175), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 470 (28996), and 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800M (28874). The clustering around 29000 points indicates the Vega M GH sits in a lower performance tier than the A1000, roughly 17% behind on average score.

The benchmark data also reveals the API-level differences. The RTX A1000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Vega M GH supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The A1000's newer API support enables features like hardware ray tracing through DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the Vega M GH cannot provide. The A1000's 18 RT cores and 72 tensor cores are the hardware foundation for these features.

In terms of raw specifications, the A1000's advantage is most pronounced in compute: 6.737 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.656 TFLOPS, and 105.3 GTexel/s versus 114.2 GTexel/s in texture rate, where the Vega M GH actually leads. The Vega M GH's pixel rate of 76.16 GPixel/s versus 46.78 GPixel/s is its strongest specification advantage. However, these fill-rate leads do not translate into benchmark wins, likely because the Vega M GH's lower shader throughput and lack of modern feature support limit overall performance in the recorded tests.

The production timeline also matters. The RTX A1000 was released in April 2024, while the Vega M GH was released in January 2018. The six-year gap explains the architectural differences: Ampere versus GCN 4.0, 8 nm versus 14 nm, GDDR6 versus HBM2, and the presence of dedicated RT and tensor cores on the newer part. The A1000's active production status and the Vega M GH's end-of-life status reinforce the conclusion that the A1000 is the current, supported choice, while the Vega M GH is a legacy integrated solution.