AMD Radeon Pro 575X vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

When two workstation graphics cards from different eras land in the same performance tier, the comparison becomes a study in trade-offs rather than a simple ranking. The database places the AMD Radeon Pro 575X and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB remarkably close in aggregate performance: the 575X carries an average benchmark score of 39116 against 34154 for the A2000, with percentile ratings of 82 and 79 respectively. Yet the single direct head-to-head test tells a very different story, and the underlying hardware diverges sharply in memory capacity, power draw, and feature set. The recorded data walks through each of these points below.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark appears in the recorded head-to-head set for this pairing: Geekbench OpenCL. There, the RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66998 against 34773 for the Radeon Pro 575X, a delta of -48.1 percent in the recorded field, which the database attributes as a win for the NVIDIA card. In practical terms, the A2000 delivers nearly double the OpenCL compute throughput of the 575X in this workload.

That result stands in apparent tension with the average scores, and the explanation lies in which tests feed each average. The 575X's database entries consist of Geekbench Metal at 44655, Geekbench OpenCL at 34773, and Geekbench Vulkan at 37919. The A2000's entries include Geekbench OpenCL at 66998 and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1309. Different test mixes produce different averages, so the 39116 versus 34154 gap reflects the composition of recorded results rather than a clean apples-to-apples win for the AMD card.

The percentile view adds context from the wider database. The 575X sits at the 82nd percentile across all GPUs, ahead of the A2000 at the 79th percentile. Against its nearest rivals, the 575X sits 1.1 percent above the AMD Radeon Pro 580X (average score 38706) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38691), and 1.1 percent below the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39555) and the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39568). The A2000 is in an even tighter cluster: 0.1 percent above the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34133), 0.2 percent behind the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34207), 0.5 percent ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33997), and 0.6 percent behind the NVIDIA TITAN V (34355). Both cards occupy dense neighborhoods where small score shifts move rank quickly.

On raw specification throughput, the picture splits. The 575X posts higher texture throughput at 140.3 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s for the A2000, a reflection of its 128 TMUs against 104. The A2000 counters with a higher pixel fill rate, 57.60 GPixel/s against 35.07 GPixel/s, on the strength of 48 ROPs versus 32, and higher compute throughput at 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 against 4.489 TFLOPS.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB. In Geekbench OpenCL, the only test recorded for both, it scores 66998 versus 34773 for the Radeon Pro 575X, a -48.1 percent delta in the database field, recorded as an A2000 win. The head-to-head record stands at one win for the A2000 and zero for the 575X.

Q: How much more memory does the A2000 have?

A: 12 GB of GDDR6 versus 4 GB of GDDR5, triple the capacity with a newer memory type. Memory bandwidth is also higher on the A2000, at 288.0 GB/s against 217.0 GB/s, despite a narrower bus: 192 bit versus 256 bit.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The A2000, at a TDP of 70 W. The 575X lists a TDP of 150 W. Neither requires external power connectors; the A2000 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has ray tracing and AI acceleration hardware?

A: Only the A2000. It carries 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, both absent on the 575X, whose GCN 4.0 design predates dedicated hardware for either function.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. The 575X was released on 2019-03-17; the A2000 on 2021-11-22.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The 575X, at 39116 versus 34154, with a percentile of 82 versus 79. However, the averages are built from different test sets, and the only direct comparison favors the A2000 decisively.

Architecture Differences

These cards come from different technological generations. The 575X uses the Ellesmere chip on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The A2000 uses the GA106 chip on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The generational gap shows in density and scale: the A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die for a density of 43.5M per mm², while the 575X carries 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die at 24.6M per mm².

The shader arrays differ in shape. The 575X fields 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The A2000 fields 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, plus the 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores the 575X lacks. Both report 1:1 FP16-to-FP32 throughput, with the A2000 at 7.987 TFLOPS on both and the 575X at 4.489 TFLOPS on both.

Clock and interface details also diverge. The A2000 lists a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz, while the 575X has no recorded clocks. Memory runs at 6.8 Gbps effective on the 575X (GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus) versus 12 Gbps effective on the A2000 (GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus). The A2000 connects over PCIe 4.0 x16 with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 support; the 575X connects over PCIe 3.0 x16 with DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Feature lineage differs too. The A2000 succeeded the Quadro Turing line and was itself followed by the Workstation Ada generation. The 575X belongs to the Radeon Pro Mac 500X Series and lists no predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision. If the workload is OpenCL compute, the recorded evidence points firmly at the RTX A2000 12 GB: 66998 versus 34773 is not a close result. The A2000 also brings ray tracing hardware, tensor cores, three times the memory capacity, higher memory bandwidth, higher pixel fill rate, higher FP32 throughput, a newer API tier, and half the power draw.

The 575X's case rests on its recorded benchmark set and cluster position. Its average score of 39116 and 82nd percentile exceed the A2000's 34154 and 79th, and its Geekbench Metal score of 44655 and Vulkan score of 37919 show it performing strongly in graphics-API workloads recorded in the database, alongside a texture fill rate advantage of 140.3 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s. Buyers weighting Metal or Vulkan results, or the aggregate percentile, would read the data in the 575X's favor. Buyers weighting the direct head-to-head, memory, features, and efficiency would read it in the A2000's favor.

One further note from the recorded data: the A2000's launch MSRP was 449 USD.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Ellesmere (575X) versus GA106 (A2000)
• Architecture: GCN 4.0 versus Ampere
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac 500X Series versus Workstation Ampere (Ax000)
• Process node: 14 nm at GlobalFoundries versus 8 nm at Samsung
• Transistors: 5,700 million versus 12,000 million
• Die size: 232 mm² versus 276 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.6M/mm² versus 43.5M/mm²
• Shading units: 2048 versus 3328
• TMUs: 128 versus 104
• ROPs: 32 versus 48
• RT cores / tensor cores: none versus 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores
• FP32/F16: 4.489 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS
• Pixel rate: 35.07 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 140.3 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus at 217.0 GB/s versus 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus at 288.0 GB/s
• Memory speed: 6.8 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps effective
• Base/boost clocks: not recorded versus 562 MHz / 1200 MHz
• TDP: 150 W versus 70 W
• Suggested PSU: not recorded versus 250 W
• Slot width: IGP versus dual-slot
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: portable device dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX / Vulkan: 12 (12_0) / 1.3 versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) / 1.4
• Dimensions: not recorded versus 167 mm length and 69 mm height
• Release date: 2019-03-17 versus 2021-11-22
• Launch MSRP: not recorded versus 449 USD
• Lineage: no predecessor or successor versus Quadro Turing predecessor and Workstation Ada successor

Where Each One Wins

The A2000 wins on:

• OpenCL compute: 66998 versus 34773, the only shared test, a decisive margin.
• Memory-heavy workloads: 12 GB versus 4 GB, and 288.0 GB/s versus 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth.
• Ray tracing and AI workloads: 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores against none.
• Pixel-bound rendering: 57.60 GPixel/s against 35.07 GPixel/s.
• Raw compute: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 against 4.489 TFLOPS.
• Power-constrained deployments: 70 W TDP against 150 W.
• Modern API requirements: DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 against DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3.

The 575X wins on:

• Recorded average score: 39116 versus 34154.
• Database percentile: 82 versus 79.
• Texture throughput: 140.3 GTexel/s against 124.8 GTexel/s.
• Metal compute: 44655, a recorded result with no A2000 counterpart in the database.
• Vulkan compute: 37919, likewise a recorded result without a matching A2000 entry.

The split is clean: compute, memory, features, and efficiency favor the NVIDIA card on the recorded evidence, while aggregate score, percentile, and texture throughput favor the AMD card. Neither card dominates the other across the full data set, and both are end-of-life parts whose rivalry here is a matter of matching strengths to workloads.