AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two workstation cards across very different workloads. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 takes the single head-to-head benchmark available in the database: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 68,562 beats the NVIDIA RTX A2000's 67,695 by 1.3%. That is a narrow margin, but it is a win nonetheless. The MI25 also holds a higher overall percentile rank, sitting at 90th place among all GPUs, while the RTX A2000 sits at 85th. If your priority is raw OpenCL compute throughput, the AMD card is the one that shows an edge in our measurements.

The RTX A2000, however, counters with a broader benchmark profile. It has three recorded results: Geekbench OpenCL at 67,695, Geekbench Vulkan at 69,089, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1,345. The MI25 has no Vulkan or DX12 results in the database, so any comparison in those APIs is impossible from recorded data. What the numbers do show is that the A2000's Vulkan score of 69,089 is actually higher than its own OpenCL score, and it comfortably exceeds the MI25's OpenCL score. For applications that lean on Vulkan, the A2000 is the only one of the two with proven performance in the database.

The MI25 wins on aggregate compute potential in the one shared test, but the A2000 wins on versatility. It offers display outputs, four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the MI25 has none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, versus the MI25's DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The A2000 also includes dedicated hardware features that the MI25 completely lacks: 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores. The MI25 has neither. So while the AMD card edges ahead in OpenCL, the NVIDIA card brings a feature set that extends beyond pure FP32 compute.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 if your work is purely OpenCL compute and you do not need display outputs. The data shows it is 1.3% ahead of the RTX A2000 in Geekbench OpenCL, and it places in the 90th percentile versus the A2000's 85th. It also offers 16 GB of HBM2 memory with 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than double the A2000's 6 GB GDDR6 at 288.0 GB/s. For large datasets that fit in GPU memory, the MI25 has a clear capacity advantage. Its FP32 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS is roughly 54% higher than the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate of 24.58 TFLOPS is more than triple the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS. If raw arithmetic throughput is the metric, the MI25 is the stronger card.

Pick the NVIDIA RTX A2000 if you need a modern workstation feature set, a compact card, or any kind of graphical output. The A2000 is 167 mm long versus the MI25's 267 mm, and it draws 70 W versus the MI25's 300 W. It has a 250 W suggested PSU requirement versus 700 W for the AMD card. It requires no external power connectors, while the MI25 needs two 8-pin connectors. It supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the MI25 is stuck on PCIe 3.0 x16. It has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, which the MI25 does not have at all. Its Vulkan result of 69,089 is actually higher than the MI25's OpenCL result of 68,562, so in Vulkan workloads the A2000 is the only card with a recorded score, and it is a strong one. The A2000 launched at 449 USD, a fact worth one mention and no further commentary.

The MI25 is end-of-life hardware from 2017, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. The A2000 is also end-of-life, but it launched in 2021 on Samsung's 8 nm process, and it has a successor, Workstation Ada. The MI25 has no successor listed. For someone building a new system today, the A2000 is the more practical choice despite its lower aggregate average benchmark score of 46,043, which is dragged down by its DX12 result. The MI25's average is 68,562, but that average comes from a single test only.

The verdict is not close in terms of usability. The MI25 wins the compute test, but the A2000 wins everything else that matters for a modern workstation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the head-to-head data is Geekbench OpenCL. The MI25 scores 68,562, and the A2000 scores 67,695. The MI25 wins by 1.3%. That is a real but modest advantage. Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the MI25's score sits just below the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809 (a 0.4% deficit) and just above the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (a 0.6% deficit). The A2000's OpenCL score of 67,695 would place it in a similar neighborhood, but the database does not list its nearest rivals for that specific test. Its overall nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (0.2% higher), the Intel Arc A730M at 45,592 (1.0% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (1.2% lower), and the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (1.2% lower). Those numbers reflect the A2000's aggregate average of 46,043, which is heavily weighted by its low DX12 score of 1,345. That DX12 result is not a head-to-head with the MI25, since the MI25 has no DX12 score.

The MI25's FP32 output of 12.29 TFLOPS versus the A2000's 7.987 TFLOPS is a 54% advantage. In FP16, the MI25 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. That is a 208% advantage for the AMD card. Texture rate also favors the MI25 at 384.0 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s, a 208% lead. Pixel rate favors the MI25 at 96.00 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s, a 67% lead. Memory bandwidth favors the MI25 at 436.2 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s, a 51% lead. In every raw throughput metric recorded, the MI25 wins by a substantial margin.

The A2000 counters with its RT and tensor cores. It has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. The MI25 has zero of both. For any workload that uses ray tracing or tensor operations, the A2000 is the only option with hardware support. The MI25's FP16 figure relies on a 2:1 ratio, meaning it likely uses a packed math path, while the A2000's FP16 is 1:1, meaning it does not gain a throughput advantage from FP16. That is a significant architectural distinction.

The A2000's Vulkan score of 69,089 is higher than its OpenCL score of 67,695, and it is higher than the MI25's OpenCL score of 68,562. So in Vulkan, the A2000 demonstrably outperforms the MI25's only recorded benchmark, even though they were not tested head-to-head in that API. The A2000's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,345 has no counterpart in the MI25's record, but it shows that the A2000 can run modern DX12 workloads at all.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus width and 436.1 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus width and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 support ray tracing?

Yes, it has 26 ray tracing cores. The AMD MI25 has none.

Q: Which card is smaller physically?

The RTX A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high. The AMD MI25 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

The AMD MI25 is rated at 300 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU. The RTX A2000 is rated at 70 W, requires no external power connectors, and has a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL?

The AMD MI25 scores 68,562 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the RTX A2000's 67,695 by 1.3%.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 have any benchmark where it clearly wins?

The RTX A2000 scores 69,089 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than the MI25's OpenCL score. It also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,345, while the MI25 has no DX12 result recorded.

Q: Which card has a newer architecture?

The RTX A2000 uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on Samsung's 8 nm process. The AMD MI25 uses GCN 5.0 on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is built on GCN 5.0, also known as Vega 10, on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA106 chip, on Samsung's 8 nm process. It has 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, for a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The A2000 packs nearly the same transistor count into roughly half the die area, a direct reflection of the denser 8 nm node.

The MI25's GCN design uses 4096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 64 ROPs. The A2000 has 3328 shading units, 26 RT cores, 104 tensor cores, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The MI25 has no RT cores and no tensor cores. The MI25's memory subsystem is HBM2 with 16 GB on a 2048-bit bus. The A2000 uses GDDR6 with 6 GB on a 192-bit bus. Memory clocks differ as well, with the MI25 rated at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) versus the A2000's 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

API support is also different. The MI25 supports DirectX 12 (12_1/12), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3, and DirectX support is 12_1. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4. Vulkan 1.4 is newer than Vulkan 1.3, and DirectX 12_2/12_2 is newer than 12_1.

The MI25's transistor budget is spread across a large die with a relatively low density. The A2000 uses a smaller, denser die. The MI25 has no display outputs, while the A2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MI25 is a dual-slot card with two 8-pin power connectors, while the A2000 is also dual-slot but has no power connectors. The MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the A2000 uses PCIe 4. The A2000's FP16 and FP32 TFLOP, but the A2000's FP16 and FP32 are both 7.987 TFLOPS, so the A2000's FP16 and FP32 TFLOP are equal. In the A2000's FP16, 7.987 TFLOPS is the FP16 rate. In the MI25, FP16 is 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1), while FP32 is 12. The MI25 also has a TDP of 300 W, the A2000's TDP is 70 W, and the MI25's pixel rate is 96.00 GPixel/s, the A2000's pixel rate is 57.60 GPixel/s, the MI25's texture rate is 24.58 TFLOPS, but the A2000's texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s, and the MI25's shading density is 25,000 transistors, the A2000's density is 25.3 million per square millimeter.

The MI25 has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, meaning FP16 throughput is double FP32. The A2000 has a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 and FP32 are the same. That is a major difference in compute capability.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The MI25 is built by AMD on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. The A2000 is built by NVIDIA on Samsung's 8 nm process. The MI25 has 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die. The A2000 has 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² for the MI25 and 43.5M per mm² for the A2000.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The MI25's base clock is 1400 MHz and its boost clock is 1500 MHz. The A2000's base clock is 562 MHz and its boost clock is 1200 MHz. Memory clock for the MI25 is 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective), while the A2000 runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 16 GB HBM2 for the MI25 versus 6 GB GDDR6 for the A2000. Bus width is 2048-bit for the MI25 and 192-bit for the A2000 bandwidth is 436.2 GB/s for the MI25 and 288.0 GB/s for the A2000.

Compute units differ but do not affect the A2000's 104 tensor cores. The MI25 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs. The A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, 48 ROPs. The MI25's RT cores are zero, the A2000's RT cores are 26. The MI25's FP32 TFLOP, the A2000's FP32, 12.29 TFLOPS, and the A2000's FP32 TFLOP is 7.987. The MI25's FP16 TFLOP is 24.58, the A2000's FP16 TFLOP is 7.987.

The MI25's TDP is 300 W, the A2000's TDP is 70 W. The MI25 uses two 8-pin power connectors, the A2000 uses none. Suggested PSU is 700 W for the MI25, 250 W for the A2000. The MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none for the MI25, four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A2000. The MI25 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high. The A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high. Both are dual-slot.

The MI25 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are 2017-06-26 for the MI25 and 2021-06-09 for the A2000. The MI25's predecessor is FirePro Data Center, the A2000's predecessor is Quadro Turing, and the A2000 has a successor, Workstation Ada, the MI25 has none. The MI25 is end-of-life, the A2000 is end-of-life, the MI25 has no successor, the A2000 has a successor, Workstation Ada. The A2000 launch MSRP is 449 USD.