Xe Arctic Sound vs Radeon RX Vega 56

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking152not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.94no data
Power efficiency11.30no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 12.5 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameVega 10Arctic Sound
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

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 cores35844096
Core clock speed1156 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million8,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt500 Watt
Texture fill rate329.5230.4
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPS7.373 TFLOPS
ROPs64128
TMUs224256

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 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 typeHBM2HBM2e
Maximum RAM amount8 GB32 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit4096 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s1,229 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.125N/A

Pros & cons summary


Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 500 Watt

RX Vega 56 has 138.1% lower power consumption.

Xe Arctic Sound, on the other hand, has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 56 and Xe Arctic Sound. We've got no test results to judge.


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 RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
Intel Xe Arctic Sound
Xe Arctic Sound

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.


4.3 777 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xe Arctic Sound 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.