AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile are two professional mobile GPUs from different eras, with the data showing them as closely matched overall despite their architectural differences. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 achieves an average benchmark score of 40318, placing it 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s 39568 average. Both cards sit at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier in the broader market. However, the benchmark split is perfectly even at one win each, with the two cards trading victories across different API workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 demonstrates a clear advantage in Vulkan-based workloads. In the geekbench_vulkan test, the AMD card scores 43285 versus the NVIDIA card’s 37873, a commanding 14.3% lead. This substantial margin suggests the GCN 4.0 architecture handles Vulkan compute tasks with notable efficiency. For users running Vulkan-enabled applications, professional visualization tools, or modern game engines that leverage this API, the Radeon Pro 580 provides measurably higher throughput.

The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile takes the victory in OpenCL workloads. The geekbench_opencl test shows the NVIDIA card scoring 41263 against the AMD card’s 38457, a 6.8% advantage. OpenCL remains widely used in scientific computing, video encoding, and various professional content creation suites, so this win carries practical weight for compute-heavy tasks. The Ampere architecture’s dedicated tensor cores and ray tracing hardware may contribute to this advantage in general-purpose compute scenarios.

Beyond these two direct comparisons, the nearestRivals data provides additional context. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 sits between the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (40377, 0.1% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40063, 0.6% slower). The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile, conversely, is bracketed by the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39555, statistically tied) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40063, 1.2% faster). This positioning shows both cards competing in the same performance neighborhood, with neither achieving decisive dominance across all metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and process nodes. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 uses the Ellesmere chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip with Ampere architecture, produced by Samsung on an 8 nm node. This newer process packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 43.5 million per mm².

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The AMD card offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card provides only 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s — less than half the bandwidth. This gives the AMD card a significant advantage in memory-heavy workloads, though the newer GDDR6 type on the NVIDIA card operates at a higher effective speed of 12 Gbps versus 6.8 Gbps for the AMD card’s GDDR5.

Compute resources show a mixed picture. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card’s higher TMU count contributes to its superior texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s versus 98.37 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. However, the NVIDIA card boasts 16 dedicated ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the AMD card. The NVIDIA card compensates with a higher boost clock of 1537 MHz versus 1200 MHz for AMD, and its pixel rate of 49.18 GPixel/s exceeds AMD’s 38.40 GPixel/s.

Power characteristics are dramatically different. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 carries a TDP of 185 W, while the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile draws only 30 W. This six-fold difference in power consumption has major implications for thermal management and battery life in mobile workstations, though the benchmark data does not directly quantify these effects.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile leads in FP32 compute with 6.296 TFLOPS compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 580’s 5.530 TFLOPS. Both cards deliver identical FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 provides 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 217.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s. The AMD card has double the capacity and more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile includes 16 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has no ray tracing cores, and its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_0) while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 has an average benchmark score of 40318, which is 1.9% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s 39568. This margin is small enough that real-world performance will vary by application.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 wins decisively in Vulkan, scoring 43285 versus 37873 for the NVIDIA card, a 14.3% advantage. The AMD card also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA card supports the newer Vulkan 1.4 specification.

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile wins in OpenCL with a score of 41263 against 38457 for the AMD Radeon Pro 580, representing a 6.8% lead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 580 | NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 832 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 1537 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1695 MHz / 6.8 Gbps | 1500 MHz / 12 Gbps |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 38.40 GPixel/s | 49.18 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 172.8 GTexel/s | 98.37 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.530 TFLOPS | 6.296 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.530 TFLOPS | 6.296 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 185 W | 30 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2017-06-04 | 2022-03-21 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL benchmark provides the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile with its strongest showing. Scoring 41263, the NVIDIA card outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 580’s 38457 by 6.8%. This result aligns with the NVIDIA card’s higher FP32 throughput and newer architecture. The RTX A500 Mobile’s 6.296 TFLOPS of compute power, combined with its 64 tensor cores, appears to translate directly into OpenCL acceleration. For workloads that rely on OpenCL — common in medical imaging, financial modeling, and certain rendering pipelines — the NVIDIA card offers a measurable performance edge.

The Vulkan benchmark tells the opposite story. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 achieves 43285, defeating the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s 37873 by a substantial 14.3% margin. This is the largest performance gap in either direction between the two cards. The AMD card’s higher memory bandwidth (217.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s) and greater texture rate (172.8 GTexel/s versus 98.37 GTexel/s) likely contribute to this Vulkan advantage. Despite having fewer shading units than its rival in some respects, the AMD architecture appears better optimized for Vulkan’s compute and graphics pipeline. The result is notable because the NVIDIA card supports the newer Vulkan 1.4 API specification versus 1.3 on AMD, yet still trails significantly in actual throughput.

Looking at the nearestRivals data for both cards provides additional perspective on these benchmark outcomes. The AMD Radeon Pro 580’s average score of 40318 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070, indicating it competes with much newer hardware. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s 39568 average puts it statistically even with the AMD Radeon Pro 575, which scores 39555. These rival relationships suggest the two cards are remarkably balanced in overall performance, with the specific API determining which one comes out ahead.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split decision. The AMD Radeon Pro 580 wins in Vulkan workloads by 14.3%, while the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile wins in OpenCL workloads by 6.8%. Neither card achieves dominance across both APIs, and their average scores differ by only 1.9% in favor of AMD.

For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications, the AMD Radeon Pro 580 is the data-backed choice. Its 43285 Vulkan score represents a significant advantage, and its 8 GB memory capacity with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth provides headroom for large datasets. The card’s higher texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s also suggests strong performance in texture-bound scenarios.

For users working primarily with OpenCL-accelerated software, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile offers the better results. Its 41263 OpenCL score and 6.296 TFLOPS FP32 performance indicate superior compute throughput. The inclusion of 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores makes it the only option of the two with hardware support for ray tracing and AI acceleration, which may matter for forward-looking workloads. The dramatically lower 30 W TDP versus 185 W also makes it the more power-efficient choice, a factor that cannot be ignored in mobile workstations.

The final decision hinges on the specific software environment. The data shows a tie in benchmark wins at one each, with the AMD card holding a slight edge in average performance. Neither card is universally superior; the best choice depends entirely on whether Vulkan or OpenCL dominates the user’s workflow.