Radeon RX Vega 9 vs FirePro A320

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated606
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data25.35
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code nameTrinity GLVega Raven Ridge
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date6 June 2012 (12 years ago)26 October 2017 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384576
Core clock speed800 MHzno data
Boost clock speed955 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors1,303 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology32 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate22.92no data
Floating-point processing power0.7334 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs24no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
WidthIGPno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno data
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12_1
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCL1.2no data
VulkanN/A-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 June 2012 26 October 2017
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 15 Watt

RX Vega 9 has an age advantage of 5 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 566.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between FirePro A320 and Radeon RX Vega 9. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that FirePro A320 is a workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 9 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro A320
FirePro A320
AMD Radeon RX Vega 9
Radeon RX Vega 9

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 2 votes

Rate FirePro A320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 21 vote

Rate Radeon RX Vega 9 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.