AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 575X and NVIDIA A2 are both end-of-life workstation graphics cards, but they target completely different use cases despite similar raw FP32 throughput. The AMD card, built on GCN 4.0, is a mobile integrated GPU from 2019, while the NVIDIA A2 is a single-slot Ampere accelerator from 2021 with no display outputs. Benchmark data shows a 1-1 split in their head-to-head tests, with the A2 taking OpenCL and the 575X winning Vulkan by a wide margin. The real differentiators are memory capacity, power draw, and feature sets like ray tracing and tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A2 wins in OpenCL compute workloads. In the geekbench_opencl test, the A2 scores 35,357 against the 575X's 34,773, a 1.7% advantage. This is a narrow margin, but it matters for applications that rely on OpenCL for general-purpose GPU compute. The A2's architecture supports these workloads efficiently, and its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory gives it a massive capacity advantage for datasets that exceed the 575X's 4 GB frame buffer. The A2 also offers dedicated RT cores (10) and tensor cores (40), which the AMD card lacks entirely — these are essential for ray-traced rendering and AI inference tasks.

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins decisively in Vulkan. Its geekbench_vulkan score of 37,919 dwarfs the A2's 34,023, a 11.5% lead. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head data, and it suggests the 575X has superior Vulkan driver optimization or hardware scheduling for that API. For graphics-heavy workloads using Vulkan, the AMD card is the clear choice. Additionally, the 575X has display outputs (portable device dependent) while the A2 has none, making the AMD card usable for direct rendering to a screen. The 575X also delivers a higher texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s versus the A2's 70.80 GTexel/s, despite the A2 having a higher pixel rate (56.64 GPixel/s vs 35.07 GPixel/s).

In terms of overall benchmark averages, the AMD card leads: its avgBenchmarkScore is 39,116 against the A2's 34,690. This puts the 575X at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the A2 sits at the 79th. The AMD card's nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro 580X (1.1% faster) and the Radeon Pro 575 (1.1% slower), showing it sits in a tight cluster of similar-performance GPUs. The A2's rivals are the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB (0.4% slower) and the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (0.4% slower), indicating its performance class is closer to older high-end parts.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA A2 if your priority is compute capacity and memory. The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory — four times the 575X's 4 GB — which is critical for large models or datasets that won't fit in a smaller frame buffer. Its 60 W TDP is less than half the 575X's 150 W, making it far more power-efficient for dense server environments. The A2's 8 nm Samsung process packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M / mm², nearly double the 575X's 24.6M / mm². It also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the 575X is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16. For headless compute nodes, the A2's lack of display outputs is irrelevant — it's designed to be an accelerator, not a display adapter.

Pick the AMD Radeon Pro 575X if you need Vulkan performance or display output. The 575X's 11.5% Vulkan lead is substantial, and its ability to drive a portable display makes it suitable for mobile workstations where you need both compute and graphics. The 575X also has a higher texture rate (140.3 GTexel/s vs 70.80 GTexel/s), which benefits certain graphics workloads. Its 82nd percentile ranking versus the A2's 79th suggests slightly better overall performance in the benchmark suite. However, the 575X's 150 W TDP and integrated (IGP) form factor limit its deployment flexibility compared to the A2's single-slot, power-efficient design.

The data does not support a universal winner. The A2 excels at memory-heavy, power-constrained compute tasks; the 575X wins at Vulkan graphics and offers display functionality. Neither card has a significant advantage in raw FP32 throughput — the A2's 4.531 TFLOPS is virtually identical to the 575X's 4.489 TFLOPS (0.9% difference).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The geekbench_opencl test shows the NVIDIA A2 winning with 35,357 points against the AMD Radeon Pro 575X's 34,773 points. The delta is 1.7% in favor of the A2. This is a modest margin, but it appears consistent with the A2's positioning as a compute-oriented card. The A2's nearest rival, the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB, scores 34,561 (0.4% lower), and the AMD Radeon HD 7970 scores 34,541 (0.4% lower), placing the A2 just slightly above both. The 575X, in contrast, is 1.1% faster than the Radeon Pro 580X (38,706) in its own OpenCL results, showing that the AMD card is competitive within its generation.

The geekbench_vulkan test flips the result dramatically. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X scores 37,919, while the NVIDIA A2 manages only 34,023. That's an 11.5% win for the AMD card. To put this in context, the 575X's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score by 3,146 points, while the A2's Vulkan score is actually 1,334 points lower than its OpenCL score. This suggests the A2's architecture is less optimized for Vulkan, or its drivers prioritize OpenCL. The A2's nearest rival in overall average, the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34,355 (1% lower), shows that even high-end NVIDIA parts from previous generations don't close this gap in Vulkan-specific tests.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce the Vulkan result. The 575X averages 39,116 across its three tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the A2 averages 34,690 across its two tests (OpenCL, Vulkan). The 575X's Metal score of 44,655 is its strongest, but the A2 has no Metal result, so a direct comparison there is impossible. The A2's lack of a Metal score and display outputs underscore its server-oriented design.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory and why does it matter?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 200.1 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A2's four-times-larger capacity is crucial for datasets larger than 4 GB; the 575X's wider bus gives it slightly higher bandwidth (217.0 vs 200.1 GB/s) but less room for data.

Q: Is the AMD card faster in all benchmarks?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows a 1-1 split: the NVIDIA A2 wins geekbench_opencl (35,357 vs 34,773, a 1.7% margin), and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X wins geekbench_vulkan (37,919 vs 34,023, an 11.5% margin). The 575X has the higher average benchmark score (39,116 vs 34,690) and a higher percentile ranking (82nd vs 79th).

Q: Can the NVIDIA A2 output video to a display?

A: No. The A2 has "No outputs" for display connections and is a single-slot card with no power connectors (drawing up to 60 W from the PCIe slot). The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs, meaning it can drive a display in supported portable systems.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA A2 has a 60 W TDP, which is 90 W lower than the AMD Radeon Pro 575X's 150 W TDP. The A2 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the 575X has no suggested PSU listed. For multi-GPU or dense server deployments, the A2's lower power draw is a significant advantage.

Q: Do either of these cards support ray tracing or AI acceleration?

A: Only the NVIDIA A2 has dedicated hardware for these tasks: 10 RT cores and 40 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has no RT or tensor cores listed. The A2 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What are the manufacturing differences between the two chips?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 575X uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die (24.6M / mm² density). The NVIDIA A2 uses an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die (43.5M / mm² density). The A2's newer, denser node allows more transistors in a smaller area.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro 575X is built on GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It packs 5,700 million transistors into a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M / mm². The GCN design uses 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. Its memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The card's pixel rate is 35.07 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 140.3 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are identical at 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

The NVIDIA A2 is based on the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a much higher transistor density of 43.5M / mm². The Ampere design includes 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but crucially adds 10 RT cores and 40 tensor cores for ray tracing and AI workloads. Its memory is 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 200.1 GB/s bandwidth. The A2 has a higher pixel rate of 56.64 GPixel/s but a lower texture rate of 70.80 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are also 1:1 at 4.531 TFLOPS. The A2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecturally, the A2's advantage lies in its dedicated tensor and RT cores, which enable hardware-accelerated AI inference and ray tracing that the 575X cannot perform. The 575X counters with a wider memory bus and higher texture throughput, which benefit traditional rasterization workloads. The A2's higher transistor density reflects its more modern process node, but its fewer shading units (1280 vs 2048) mean it relies on efficiency rather than raw shader count.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA A2 uses Samsung's 8 nm node. The 575X has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die; the A2 has 8,700 million on a smaller 200 mm² die. Clock speeds differ: the 575X lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective), whereas the A2 has a base clock of 1440 MHz and boost of 1770 MHz, with memory at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are starkly different: the 575X has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (217.0 GB/s), while the A2 has 16 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus (200.1 GB/s). The 575X uses 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the A2 uses 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The A2 adds 10 RT cores and 40 tensor cores; the 575X has none. Pixel rate favors the A2 (56.64 vs 35.07 GPixel/s), while texture rate favors the 575X (140.3 vs 70.80 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is nearly identical (4.489 vs 4.531 TFLOPS).

Power and physical characteristics diverge sharply. The 575X has a 150 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated) form factor with no power connectors; the A2 has a 60 W TDP, is single-slot, and also has no power connectors but notes a 250 W suggested PSU. The 575X uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the A2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: the 575X is "Portable Device Dependent," while the A2 has no outputs. API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_0) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.3 vs 1.4, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6. The 575X was released on 2019-03-17; the A2 on 2021-11-09. The A2's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada; the 575X has no listed predecessor or successor.