Xe Arctic Sound vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking653not rated
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Power efficiency20.78no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Generation 12.5 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeArctic Sound
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date26 October 2017 (7 years ago)no data (2024 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 cores5124096
Core clock speedno data900 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data8,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt500 Watt
Texture fill rateno data230.4
Floating-point processing powerno data7.373 TFLOPS
ROPsno data128
TMUsno data256

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataHBM2e
Maximum RAM amountno data32 GB
Memory bus widthno data4096 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data1,229 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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 14 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 500 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has 3233.3% lower power consumption.

Xe Arctic Sound, on the other hand, has a 40% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Xe Arctic Sound. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while Xe Arctic Sound is a desktop 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 Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
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.


3.5 1375 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 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.