RTX A2000 vs Radeon Pro Vega 64

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 and RTX A2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro Vega 64
2017
16 GB HBM2, 250 Watt
33.48

RTX A2000 outperforms Pro Vega 64 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking156137
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data85.94
Power efficiency9.3135.34
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameVega 10GA106
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date27 June 2017 (7 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores40963328
Core clock speed1250 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate345.6124.8
Floating-point processing power11.06 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs6448
TMUs256104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm167 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/s288.0 GB/s

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 outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.3
CUDA-8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 64 33.48
RTX A2000 35.57
+6.2%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro Vega 64 12920
RTX A2000 13728
+6.3%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 64 71271
RTX A2000 73369
+2.9%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 64 73751
+7.6%
RTX A2000 68551

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD90−95
−6.7%
96
+6.7%
1440p40−45
−15%
46
+15%
4K27−30
−7.4%
29
+7.4%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.48 35.57
Recency 27 June 2017 10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 70 Watt

Pro Vega 64 has a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 6.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 257.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro Vega 64 and RTX A2000.


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 Radeon Pro Vega 64
Radeon Pro Vega 64
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

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.


4.3 19 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 64 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 558 votes

Rate RTX A2000 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.