AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 and the AMD Radeon Pro 575X represent two very different eras of workstation graphics. The RTX A2000 is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture with a focus on modern compute features, while the Radeon Pro 575X is an older GCN 4.0 part designed primarily for Apple Mac systems. The database records show a clear performance gap, but the details of where each card wins and loses reveal a more nuanced picture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data in the database covers two shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67695 against the Radeon Pro 575X’s 34773. That is a delta of 94.7%, meaning the RTX A2000 is nearly twice as fast in this compute workload. This is a massive margin, not a marginal lead. The OpenCL test is a general-purpose compute benchmark that stresses raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, so the RTX A2000’s higher FP32 rate of 7.987 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 575X is the dominant factor here.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A2000 scores 69089 while the Radeon Pro 575X scores 37919. The delta here is 82.2%. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that can expose architectural differences more directly than older APIs. The RTX A2000’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, along with dedicated RT cores and Tensor cores, likely contributes to this lead. The Radeon Pro 575X supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), which are older API versions.

The aggregate benchmark score in the database tells the same story. The RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46043, while the Radeon Pro 575X averages 39116. That is a difference of roughly 17.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. The RTX A2000 also sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 575X sits in the 82nd percentile. Both are above average, but the RTX A2000 is further up the distribution.

It is notably the Radeon Pro 575X does not have a win in any recorded head-to-head test. The wins column shows 2 for the RTX A2000 and 0 for the Radeon Pro 575X. However, the Radeon Pro 575X does have one benchmark test that the RTX A2000 does not share: Geekbench Metal. The Radeon Pro 575X scores 44655 in Metal, which is a higher score than its OpenCL result of 34773. This suggests that the card is better optimized for Apple’s Metal API, which makes sense given its generation name: Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series). The RTX A2000 has no recorded Metal benchmark, so this is an area where the AMD card shows a specific strength, even though it cannot be directly compared in the head-to-head table.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the RTX A2000 is the stronger card for general-purpose compute and modern graphics API workloads. Its wins in both OpenCL and Vulkan are substantial, with deltas of 94.7% and 82.2% respectively. This makes it the clear choice for tasks that rely on raw FP32 throughput, such as simulation, rendering, and data processing. The RTX A2000 also has dedicated RT cores (26) and Tensor cores (104), which are absent from the Radeon Pro 575X. These hardware units are essential for ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, though the benchmark data does not directly test them. Still, the presence of these units in the specifications suggests that the RTX A2000 is better equipped for future-facing applications.

The Radeon Pro 575X, on the other hand, has a higher texture rate: 140.3 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s for the RTX A2000. It also has more TMUs (128 versus 104). This means that in texture-heavy workloads, the AMD card could potentially keep up or even outperform the NVIDIA card, despite its lower overall FP32 throughput. However, the benchmark data does not include a texture-specific test, so this remains an inference from the specifications rather than a measured result. The Radeon Pro 575X also has a wider memory bus (256 bit versus 192 bit for the RTX A2000), which could help in scenarios where memory addressing efficiency matters more than raw bandwidth, though the RTX A2000 still has higher total bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s.

The Radeon Pro 575X is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a slot width listed as IGP, meaning it is designed to be built into a portable device, specifically a Mac. Its display outputs are listed as Portable Device Dependent, which means it relies on the host system’s display connections rather than offering its own ports. The RTX A2000, by contrast, is a dual-slot add-in card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. This makes the RTX A2000 far more flexible for multi-display setups in standard workstations, while the Radeon Pro 575X is locked into whatever the Mac chassis provides.

For users working within a Mac ecosystem, the Radeon Pro 575X might be the only option given its IGP form factor, but the data shows that the RTX A2000 is the more capable compute performer in every shared test.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior GPU for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. It leads by 94.7% in OpenCL and 82.2% in Vulkan, and it has a higher average benchmark score of 46043 versus 39116. The RTX A2000 also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the Radeon Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. If a user is deciding between these two for a typical workstation task that involves compute or modern graphics, the RTX A2000 is the clear winner.

The Radeon Pro 575X, however, should not be dismissed entirely. Its Geekbench Metal score of 44655 is higher than its OpenCL score of 34773, indicating that it performs better under Apple’s Metal API. For Mac users who are tied to that ecosystem and do not require the compute density of the RTX A2000, the Radeon Pro 575X could still be a viable part for lighter workloads. It also has a higher texture rate (140.3 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s), which may be beneficial for certain texture-bound rendering tasks, though this is not verified by the benchmark data.

The percentile rankings are close: 85th for the RTX A2000 and 82nd for the Radeon Pro 575X. This suggests that while the RTX A2000 is better, both cards are above average in the overall GPU landscape. The RTX A2000’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation with an average score of 45972 (a delta of 0.2%), the Intel Arc A730M at 45592 (delta of 1%), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46601 (delta of -1.2%), and the Intel Arc A530M at 46614 (delta of -1.2%). This shows that the RTX A2000 sits in a competitive cluster where small percentage differences separate it from other mid-range cards. The Radeon Pro 575X’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro 580X at 38706 (delta of 1.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38691 (delta of 1.1%), the AMD Radeon Pro 575 at 39555 (delta of -1.1%), and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile at 39568 (delta of -1.1%). This indicates that the Radeon Pro 575X is also in a tight grouping, but at a lower absolute performance level.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 46043, while the AMD Radeon Pro 575X has an average of 39116.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A2000 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 67695 versus 34773 for the Radeon Pro 575X, a delta of 94.7%.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 575X have any benchmark where it excels?

A: The Radeon Pro 575X scores 44655 in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than its own OpenCL score of 34773. This indicates better performance under Apple’s Metal API, though the RTX A2000 does not have a recorded Metal benchmark for direct comparison.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has 26 RT cores and 104 Tensor cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 575X has no RT cores or Tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two?

A: The RTX A2000 is a dual-slot add-in card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Radeon Pro 575X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with display outputs listed as Portable Device Dependent.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural families. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 is based on the GA106 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The Radeon Pro 575X uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference alone (8 nm versus 14 nm) explains a significant portion of the efficiency and performance gap. The RTX A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors onto a 276 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Radeon Pro 575X has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6M per mm². The RTX A2000 has more than double the transistor count, which allows for more complex compute units and features.

The RTX A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 575X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. While the AMD card has more TMUs, the NVIDIA card has significantly more shading units and ROPs. The RTX A2000 also includes 26 RT cores and 104 Tensor cores, which are absent from the Radeon Pro 575X. This is a major architectural divergence: the RTX A2000 is designed for ray tracing and AI acceleration, while the Radeon Pro 575X relies solely on traditional shader-based compute.

The FP32 compute rates reflect this difference. The RTX A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon Pro 575X delivers 4.489 TFLOPS. Both cards have a 1:1 FP16 ratio, so their FP16 rates match their FP32 rates. The pixel rate also favors the RTX A2000: 57.60 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s. However, the texture rate favors the AMD card: 140.3 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s.

The API support differs as well. The RTX A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The Radeon Pro 575X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), Vulkan 1.3, and OpenGL 4.6. The RTX A2000’s newer API support enables features like hardware ray tracing and variable rate shading, which are not available on the older GCN architecture.

Specification Differences

The specifications show several key differences beyond the architectural ones. The RTX A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 192-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 575X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A2000 has higher total bandwidth despite the narrower bus, thanks to faster GDDR6 memory running at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. The Radeon Pro 575X runs its GDDR5 memory at 1695 MHz with 6.8 Gbps effective speed.

The power profiles differ significantly. The RTX A2000 has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Radeon Pro 575X has a TDP of 150 W and no suggested PSU listed. The RTX A2000 is far more power-efficient, which is consistent with its newer 8 nm process and lower transistor count per watt. The Radeon Pro 575X, with its 14 nm process and higher TDP, consumes more power for less performance.

The bus interface also differs: the RTX A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro 575X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The newer PCIe version provides twice the bandwidth per lane, which can matter for data transfer between the GPU and host system in compute workloads. The RTX A2000 has a physical length of 167 mm (6.6 inches) and a height of 69 mm (2.7 inches), making it a compact dual-slot card. The Radeon Pro 575X has no listed dimensions, but its slot width is listed as IGP, meaning it is integrated into the host system rather than being a standalone card.

The release dates show the RTX A2000 came later (2021-08-09) than the Radeon Pro 575X (2019-03-17). The RTX A2000 had a launch MSRP of 449 USD, while the Radeon Pro 575X has no launch MSRP recorded. The RTX A2000’s predecessor is listed as Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada, while the Radeon Pro 575X has no predecessor or successor recorded. Both cards are marked as end-of-life in terms of production status.