A10G vs Radeon RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 with A10G, including specs and performance data.
A10G outperforms RX Vega 5 by a whopping 663% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 722 | 183 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.87 | 16.69 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (6 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (5 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 cores | 320 | 9216 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 492.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 31.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 9 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 6 MB |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 8-pin EPS |
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 type | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1563 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 600.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 HD | 19
−637%
| 140−150
+637%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
−598%
|
300−310
+598%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 11
−627%
|
80−85
+627%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−627%
|
160−170
+627%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
−659%
|
220−230
+659%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−633%
|
110−120
+633%
|
| Fortnite | 52
−573%
|
350−400
+573%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−602%
|
400−450
+602%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−622%
|
130−140
+622%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
−600%
|
350−400
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
−644%
|
290−300
+644%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 21
−662%
|
160−170
+662%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
−633%
|
110−120
+633%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−631%
|
95−100
+631%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−602%
|
400−450
+602%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
−657%
|
280−290
+657%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−631%
|
95−100
+631%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−650%
|
150−160
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−606%
|
120−130
+606%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−602%
|
400−450
+602%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12
−650%
|
90−95
+650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−658%
|
250−260
+658%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−658%
|
250−260
+658%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−661%
|
350−400
+661%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−650%
|
75−80
+650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−650%
|
60−65
+650%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−650%
|
120−130
+650%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−662%
|
160−170
+662%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−650%
|
45−50
+650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and A10G compete in popular games:
- A10G is 637% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.26 | 32.52 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 12 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 150 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has a 14% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
A10G, on the other hand, has a 663% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The A10G is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 5 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook graphics card while A10G is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
