AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile and the AMD FirePro D500, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile scores 73,002 points against 18,533 points for the AMD FirePro D500. That translates to a 293.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card, meaning it delivers roughly four times the Vulkan performance of the older AMD part. This is not a close contest by any measure; the delta is so large that it dominates any other consideration in this matchup.

Context from the rivals list reinforces how wide this gap really is. The RTX A4000 Mobile sits at the 66th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 21,379. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 (average score 21,629, which is 1.2% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237, 0.7% lower), the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21,153, 1.1% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 (21,035, 1.6% lower). So in aggregate performance, the RTX A4000 Mobile trades blows with those cards, all within a narrow band of roughly 2%. Meanwhile, the FirePro D500 sits at the 62nd percentile with an average score of 18,533, and its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, 0.5% higher), the Intel Arc A770M (18,383, 0.8% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, 0.8% higher), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 (18,373, 0.9% lower). The FirePro's average is about 2,800 points lower than the RTX A4000 Mobile's average, and the Vulkan head-to-head shows the gap is far larger in that specific API.

The NVIDIA card's other benchmark scores paint a fuller picture of its strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL it posts 97,178 points, in Passmark G3D it reaches 14,796, and in Passmark GPU Compute it scores 6,394. The FirePro D500 has no recorded scores for those tests, so the database only confirms its Vulkan result. That single data point, however, is enough to establish the performance hierarchy: the RTX A4000 Mobile wins the only head-to-head test, and it wins it by an enormous margin. The wins column in the record shows 1 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD, which matches the benchmark evidence exactly.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 73,002 versus 18,533 for the AMD FirePro D500, a 293.9% advantage.

Q: How does the RTX A4000 Mobile compare to its nearest rivals in average score?

A: Its average benchmark score is 21,379. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is 1.2% higher at 21,629, while the AMD Radeon HD 8970M is 0.7% lower at 21,237, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is 1.1% lower at 21,153, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is 1.6% lower at 21,035.

Q: What is the AMD FirePro D500's standing among similar GPUs?

A: It sits at the 62nd percentile with an average score of 18,533. The AMD Radeon RX 560X is 0.5% higher at 18,626, the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT is 0.8% higher at 18,685, while the Intel Arc A770M is 0.8% lower at 18,383 and the AMD Radeon RX 460 is 0.9% lower at 18,373.

Q: Does the FirePro D500 have any benchmark win over the RTX A4000 Mobile?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the RTX A4000 Mobile has 1 win and the FirePro D500 has 0 wins.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile has 384.0 GB/s bandwidth with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the AMD FirePro D500 has 243.8 GB/s with 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each card?

A: The RTX A4000 Mobile delivers 134.4 GPixel/s and 268.8 GTexel/s. The FirePro D500 delivers 23.20 GPixel/s and 69.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip built on Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 44.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. That die holds 4,313 million transistors across 352 mm², for a density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the NVIDIA chip crams over 3.6 times as many transistors into only slightly more silicon area.

The compute resources reflect that gap. The RTX A4000 Mobile has 5,120 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 raster operation processors. It also includes 40 ray tracing cores and 160 tensor cores, features that simply do not exist on the FirePro D500, which has no RT cores and no tensor cores recorded. The FirePro has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In raw shader count, the NVIDIA part has more than three times the AMD card's count, and its FP32 throughput is 17.20 TFLOPS versus 2.227 TFLOPS for the FirePro. The NVIDIA card also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 17.20 TFLOPS, while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture differs as well. The RTX A4000 Mobile uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, running at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. The FirePro uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, but only reaches 243.8 GB/s, with a memory clock of 1270 MHz and 5.1 Gbps effective. The wider bus on the AMD card cannot compensate for the older memory technology and smaller capacity. The RTX card also has a smaller power footprint in terms of rated TDP: 115 W versus 274 W for the FirePro. The FirePro requires a 600 W suggested PSU and uses a dual-slot design with a 279 mm length (11 inches), while the RTX A4000 Mobile has no recorded slot width or length, and lists no power connectors, consistent with a mobile form factor.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction without ambiguity. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 293.9%, and its average benchmark score of 21,379 is higher than the FirePro D500's 18,533. The NVIDIA card also outperforms in every architectural metric where both have recorded values: shading units (5,120 versus 1,536), TMUs (160 versus 96), ROPs (80 versus 32), FP32 throughput (17.20 versus 2.227 TFLOPS), pixel rate (134.4 versus 23.20 GPixel/s), texture rate (268.8 versus 69.60 GTexel/s), memory size (8 GB versus 3 GB), and memory bandwidth (384.0 versus 243.8 GB/s). It achieves all of this while drawing less power, 115 W versus 274 W.

The only area where the FirePro D500 shows any structural advantage is its 384-bit memory bus versus the NVIDIA card's 256-bit bus, and its dual-slot desktop form factor with six mini-DisplayPort outputs plus one SDI output. But the bus width advantage does not translate into bandwidth supremacy, and the output configuration is a matter of workstation connectivity, not raw performance. For anyone choosing between these two based on benchmark results, the RTX A4000 Mobile is the clear pick. It offers roughly four times the Vulkan performance, higher compute throughput, more memory, and lower power consumption. The FirePro D500, with its single recorded benchmark and 62nd percentile standing, belongs to an older generation that the data shows cannot keep pace.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile | AMD FirePro D500 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 243.8 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1270 MHz, 5.1 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 5120 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 160 | 96 |

| ROPs | 80 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 40 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 160 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 134.4 GPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 268.8 GTexel/s | 69.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 17.20 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.20 TFLOPS (1:1) | None recorded |

| TDP | 115 W | 274 W |

| Slot Width | None recorded | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None recorded | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2014-01-17 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing-M | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Ada-MW | Radeon Instinct |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile wins every category where the database has comparable data. In compute workloads, its FP32 output of 17.20 TFLOPS is over 7.7 times the FirePro's 2.227 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability at the same rate gives it a massive edge for any mixed-precision work. Its 40 RT cores and 160 tensor cores open up ray tracing and AI-accelerated tasks that the FirePro cannot attempt at all. Memory bandwidth favors the NVIDIA card at 384.0 GB/s versus 243.8 GB/s, and it carries 8 GB of GDDR6 versus 3 GB of GDDR5, which matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The pixel rate of 134.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 268.8 GTexel/s are roughly 5.8 and 3.9 times the FirePro's respective rates, meaning the NVIDIA card can drive higher resolutions and more complex scenes without bottlenecking.

The AMD FirePro D500 has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its advantages are limited to physical attributes: a 384-bit memory bus, a dual-slot form factor, and six mini-DisplayPort outputs plus one SDI output. For a fixed workstation with multiple displays, that connectivity could be practical, but it does not translate into performance superiority. Its 28 nm process and GCN 1.0 architecture are older, and its 274 W TDP is more than double the NVIDIA card's 115 W. In any workload where compute, graphics, or memory throughput matters, the RTX A4000 Mobile is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. The FirePro D500 remains a legacy part whose best use case is a system already built around its specific output configuration, not one where benchmark results drive the decision.