AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition vs NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition and NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile are both end-of-life professional GPUs that land in the 91st percentile of all GPUs, yet they achieve this status through radically different design philosophies. The data shows a 2-2 split in benchmark wins, but the nature of those wins tells a clear story: the AMD card is a desktop behemoth that dominates in Vulkan, while the NVIDIA mobile part excels in OpenCL. The average benchmark scores—73370 for AMD and 70140 for NVIDIA—separate them by only 4.6%, making this a contest of workload-specific strengths rather than overall superiority.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the head-to-head comparison is the Vulkan test, where the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition delivers a commanding victory. AMD scores 71937 against NVIDIA’s 61189, a delta of 17.6%. This is not a marginal edge; it is a substantial margin that positions the Vega Frontier as the clear choice for Vulkan-based compute or rendering tasks. The 17.6% advantage suggests that AMD’s GCN 5.0 architecture handles Vulkan’s low-level API overhead more efficiently than NVIDIA’s Ampere implementation in this specific mobile configuration.

Conversely, the OpenCL benchmark flips the script. The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile scores 79091, edging out AMD’s 76111 by 3.8%. This is a tighter margin than AMD’s Vulkan win, but it is still a definitive result. The data indicates that for OpenCL workloads—which remain common in scientific computing and cross-platform development—the NVIDIA part holds a measurable advantage. This 3.8% lead is consistent with the RTX A3000 Mobile’s overall positioning, as it also sits 1.7% above the NVIDIA CMP 90HX in its nearest rival list.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the AMD card’s average score of 73370 places it 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 and 1.8% ahead of the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal. The RTX A3000 Mobile, by contrast, sits just 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200. These figures show that while both cards are clustered near the top of the performance curve, the AMD Vega Frontier Edition has slightly more headroom over its immediate rivals, whereas the NVIDIA part is more tightly bunched with its competition.

The Vulkan result is particularly noteworthy because it reverses the expected hierarchy. The RTX A3000 Mobile’s newer 8 nm process and higher transistor density (44.4M / mm² versus 25.3M / mm²) might suggest superiority, but the Vega Frontier’s 17.6% Vulkan lead proves that architecture efficiency matters more than raw manufacturing technology in this specific API. The OpenCL result, however, shows NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture is no slouch, delivering a 3.8% win that keeps the head-to-head deadlocked at one win apiece.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is the clear winner for Vulkan-based applications. Its 71937 Vulkan score versus NVIDIA’s 61189 represents a 17.6% advantage, which is the largest margin in any comparison. This makes it the superior choice for developers or professionals working with Vulkan-exclusive renderers, game engines, or compute frameworks. The card’s higher pixel rate (102.4 GPixel/s versus 78.72 GPixel/s) and texture rate (409.6 GTexel/s versus 157.4 GTexel/s) further reinforce its strength in graphics-heavy tasks that leverage these raw throughput capabilities.

The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile wins in OpenCL, scoring 79091 against AMD’s 76111, a 3.8% margin. This advantage is modest but meaningful, especially for workloads that rely heavily on OpenCL for GPU compute, such as certain physics simulations, image processing pipelines, or financial modeling. The NVIDIA card also benefits from dedicated RT cores (32) and tensor cores (128), which the AMD card lacks entirely. While these features do not appear in the head-to-head benchmarks, their presence suggests the RTX A3000 Mobile is better equipped for ray tracing or AI-accelerated tasks, even if the provided data does not quantify that advantage.

In terms of memory configuration, the AMD card offers 16 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and 483.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus NVIDIA’s 6 GB of GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 264.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card’s memory bandwidth is 83% higher, which likely contributes to its Vulkan dominance, where large data transfers are common. However, the NVIDIA card’s smaller memory footprint may suffice for mobile workloads, and its 11 Gbps effective memory speed is faster per-pin than AMD’s 1890 Mbps effective rate, even if the aggregate bandwidth is lower.

The power dynamics further separate these cards. The AMD Vega Frontier Edition has a TDP of 300 W and requires dual 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 700 W PSU, while the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile operates at just 70 W with no external power connectors. This makes the NVIDIA card vastly more power-efficient—its FP32 performance of 10.08 TFLOPS comes at a fraction of the power draw, whereas AMD’s 13.11 TFLOPS demands 4.3 times the power. For mobile or space-constrained deployments, the NVIDIA card is the only viable option, while the AMD card is a desktop-only powerhouse.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear verdict based on workload priority. If Vulkan performance is the primary concern, the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is the definitive choice. Its 17.6% lead in Vulkan is the largest performance gap in this comparison, and its superior pixel and texture rates make it a formidable graphics compute engine. The 16 GB HBM2 memory with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth also provides a massive advantage for memory-bound workloads, offering more than 83% higher bandwidth than the NVIDIA card.

If OpenCL performance is more critical, the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile takes the edge with its 3.8% win. Its 79091 OpenCL score is the highest single benchmark result in this comparison, and its lower power draw (70 W versus 300 W) makes it the only realistic choice for laptop or compact workstation deployments. The inclusion of RT cores and tensor cores, while not benchmarked here, positions it as a more future-proof option for ray tracing and AI workloads.

For users who need a desktop card with maximum raw throughput, the AMD Vega Frontier Edition offers higher FP32 (13.11 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS) and FP16 (26.21 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS) performance. However, this comes at the cost of a 300 W TDP and dual-slot cooling. For users prioritizing portability or energy efficiency, the NVIDIA card’s 70 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface are decisive advantages, even with its lower aggregate benchmark score. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has an average benchmark score of 73370, which is 4.6% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile’s 70140.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In the geekbench_vulkan test, the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition scores 71937, which is 17.6% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile’s score of 61189.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile outperform the AMD card in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the geekbench_opencl test, the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile scores 79091, beating the AMD card’s 76111 by 3.8%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has a memory bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s, while the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile has 264.0 GB/s, giving the AMD card an 83% higher bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: Both cards have exactly 4096 shading units, making them equal in this specification despite their architectural differences.

Q: What is the transistor density comparison?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile has a transistor density of 44.4M / mm², which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition’s 25.3M / mm², due to its 8 nm process versus AMD’s 14 nm node.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is built on the Vega 10 chip using the GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3M / mm². This architecture relies on a massive 2048-bit memory bus paired with 16 GB of HBM2 memory, achieving a bandwidth of 483.8 GB/s. The card features 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no dedicated RT cores or tensor cores. Its FP32 performance is 13.11 TFLOPS, while FP16 is 26.21 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The card supports PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip based on the Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 44.4M / mm². The memory subsystem is notably different: 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 264.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The card also has 4096 shading units but only 128 TMUs, alongside 64 ROPs. Critically, it includes 32 RT cores and 128 tensor cores, enabling hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration that the AMD card lacks. Its FP32 and FP16 performance are both 10.08 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio for FP16. The NVIDIA card supports PCIe 4.0 x16 and its display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its mobile design.

Specification Differences

The most glaring differences emerge in power and physical design. The AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition has a TDP of 300 W, requires dual 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 700 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card is dual-slot with dimensions of 267 mm length and 111 mm height, whereas the NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions, consistent with a mobile part. The AMD card’s memory operates at 945 MHz with 1890 Mbps effective speed, while the NVIDIA card’s memory runs at 1375 MHz with 11 Gbps effective speed. The bus interface differs as well: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Clock speeds show a stark contrast: the AMD card has a base clock of 1382 MHz and boost of 1600 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has a much lower base of 600 MHz and boost of 1230 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the NVIDIA card achieves competitive performance due to its newer architecture. The pixel rate favors AMD at 102.4 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA’s 78.72 GPixel/s, and the texture rate heavily favors AMD at 409.6 GTexel/s versus 157.4 GTexel/s. API support also differs: AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates are separated by nearly four years, with AMD launching on 2017-06-26 and NVIDIA on 2021-04-11, and the AMD card has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, while the NVIDIA card has no listed launch MSRP.