AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two accelerators, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile records a score of 124,287 against 68,562 for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25. That is a delta of 81.3%, meaning the NVIDIA part finishes more than four-fifths ahead of the AMD accelerator in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The win count reflects this: one win for the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, zero for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25.

Context from the broader database clarifies how each card sits relative to its own competitive neighborhood. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 113,944, which places it in the 94th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (a delta of -0.4%, essentially a tie), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 (delta -2.7%), the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 at 110,725 (delta +2.9%), and the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (delta -2.9%). The data indicates the RTX A5500 Mobile sits in a tight cluster of high-end accelerators, trading places with its nearest competitors within a band of roughly 3% in either direction.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 68,562 and sits in the 90th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809 (delta -0.4%), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870 (delta -1.9%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (delta -2%). The MI25 is therefore competitive with a group of mid-to-high-range cards, but its absolute score is roughly 45% below the RTX A5500 Mobile's average, and the head-to-head OpenCL gap of 81.3% is far larger than any delta seen among either card's nearest rivals.

Notably, the MI25 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database, while the RTX A5500 Mobile posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 103,601. That additional data point reinforces the NVIDIA card's broader API coverage, though the OpenCL result remains the only directly comparable measurement between the two.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 124,287 against 68,562 for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25, a delta of 81.3%.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile compare to its closest rivals?

A: Its average score of 113,944 is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, 2.7% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 2.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7900, and 2.9% behind the NVIDIA GB10.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 compare to its closest rivals?

A: Its average score of 68,562 is 0.4% behind the Intel Arc A770, 0.6% behind the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200, and 2.0% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each card?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile ranks in the 94th percentile among all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 ranks in the 90th percentile.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark advantage?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 and one win for the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile. The AMD card also lacks a Vulkan benchmark entry, whereas the NVIDIA card records a Vulkan score of 103,601.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile delivers 22.27 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 delivers 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. Despite the AMD card's higher FP16 figure, its FP32 output is 12.29 TFLOPS against 22.27 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is the clear winner in every measurable compute category from the database. Its FP32 throughput of 22.27 TFLOPS is nearly double the MI25's 12.29 TFLOPS. The texture rate also favors NVIDIA: 348.0 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s for AMD, a rare category where the MI25 posts a higher raw figure, though the pixel rate reverses this, with NVIDIA at 144.0 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s for AMD. In the only direct benchmark, the RTX A5500 Mobile leads by 81.3%, which strongly indicates its suitability for general compute workloads, OpenCL-based applications, and any task that relies on FP32 throughput.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 does hold specific advantages in the specification sheet, but these do not translate into benchmark wins. Its texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s exceeds the NVIDIA card's 348.0 GTexel/s, and its FP16 output of 24.58 TFLOPS is higher than the RTX A5500 Mobile's 22.27 TFLOPS. For workloads that can exploit FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, the MI25 might theoretically offer an edge, but the database shows no benchmark result confirming this in practice. Its memory bandwidth of 436.2 GB/s is also lower than the NVIDIA card's 512.0 GB/s, despite the MI25 using a wider 2048-bit bus. The MI25's 16 GB of HBM2 memory matches the RTX A5500 Mobile's 16 GB of GDDR6, so capacity is not a differentiator.

For use-case selection, the data points to the NVIDIA card for any compute task where OpenCL performance, FP32 throughput, or Vulkan support matters. The AMD card's higher FP16 and texture rates suggest it could be considered for specialized FP16 workloads or texture-heavy operations, but no benchmark evidence in the database validates that choice. The RTX A5500 Mobile also records a Vulkan score of 103,601, an API entirely absent from the MI25's recorded tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile uses a GA103 chip with an 8 nm process from Samsung, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses a Vega 10 chip on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts differ substantially: 22,000 million for NVIDIA versus 12,500 million for AMD, with die sizes of 496 mm² and 495 mm² respectively, yielding transistor densities of 44.4M per mm² and 25.3M per mm².

Clock behavior also diverges. The NVIDIA card has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz, with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The AMD card runs a base clock of 1400 MHz, also boosting to 1500 MHz, with memory at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective). Memory architecture differs completely: NVIDIA uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus delivering 512.0 GB/s, while AMD uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus delivering 436.2 GB/s.

Compute resources show a significant gap. The NVIDIA card has 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 58 RT cores, and 232 tensor cores. The AMD card has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and no RT or tensor cores. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Power requirements differ sharply: 165 W for NVIDIA versus 300 W for AMD, with the AMD card requiring 2x 8-pin power connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA card uses no power connectors and has no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card is dual-slot, 267 mm long, and 111 mm tall, with no display outputs. The NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent". The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. NVIDIA's RTX A5500 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture (generation "Ampere-MW (Ax000)"), which includes dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, 58 and 232 respectively. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is built on GCN 5.0 (generation "Radeon Instinct (MIx)"), a design that predates dedicated RT and tensor hardware, so those fields are null. The process node difference, 8 nm versus 14 nm, explains part of the transistor density gap: NVIDIA packs 44.4 million transistors per mm² versus 25.3 million for AMD, despite nearly identical die sizes.

The FP16 implementation differs in a meaningful way. The NVIDIA card achieves 22.27 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it treats FP16 and FP32 with equal throughput. The AMD card achieves 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 runs at twice the rate of its FP32 output. This is a classic architectural tradeoff: AMD's GCN design offers higher peak FP16 for select workloads, but NVIDIA's Ampere design provides balanced throughput across both precisions.

The memory architectures also reflect different design philosophies. AMD's HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus is a wide-but-slower configuration, while NVIDIA's GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus achieves higher bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s) with a narrower interface. The AMD card's lack of display outputs confirms its role as a compute-only accelerator, whereas the NVIDIA card's "Portable Device Dependent" output designation suggests flexibility for mobile or embedded form factors. Production status for both is end-of-life, with release dates of 2022-03-21 for NVIDIA and 2017-06-26 for AMD, showing a five-year gap between their introductions.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: for almost any compute workload, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is the stronger choice. Its OpenCL score is 81.3% higher than the MI25's, its FP32 throughput is 22.27 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, its pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s, and its memory bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, both newer than the AMD card's DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The only categories where the MI25 posts higher numbers are texture rate (384.0 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s) and FP16 peak (24.58 TFLOPS versus 22.27 TFLOPS), but no benchmark in the database confirms these translate into real-world advantages.

Buyers or system integrators choosing between these two should pick the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile for any task involving OpenCL, FP32 compute, ray tracing (via its 58 RT cores), or tensor operations (via its 232 tensor cores). The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 could be considered only for niche FP16-heavy workloads or texture-bound operations, and even then the lack of benchmark evidence makes that recommendation speculative. The NVIDIA card also consumes 165 W versus 300 W for AMD, a notable efficiency gap, though the AMD card's dual-slot design and standard power connectors might fit certain rack configurations more easily. Given that both are end-of-life products, the choice hinges on raw performance, and the recorded data overwhelmingly favors NVIDIA.