AMD Radeon Pro 580X vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the benchmark data, this is a split decision. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile takes the OpenCL test decisively, scoring 41,263 against the AMD Radeon Pro 580X's 36,426 — a 13.3% advantage. That is the single largest performance gap in any shared workload between these two cards. For compute-oriented tasks that rely on OpenCL, the NVIDIA part holds a clear edge that should translate into measurable gains in applications built around that API.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580X, however, strikes back in the Vulkan test. Its score of 40,115 beats the RTX A500 Mobile's 37,873 by 5.6%. While the margin is smaller than NVIDIA's OpenCL win, it is still a meaningful reversal. Vulkan is the modern cross-platform graphics API, and this result suggests that the AMD card is the stronger choice for workloads that lean on that interface — particularly in gaming or GPU-accelerated rendering contexts where Vulkan is the primary path.

It is notably the AMD card also has a Metal benchmark result (39,577), which the NVIDIA GPU does not have in this data set. Since the Radeon Pro 580X is explicitly listed as part of the "Radeon Pro Mac" generation, Metal performance is highly relevant to its intended ecosystem. The absence of a comparable Metal score for the RTX A500 Mobile means that, for macOS-based workflows, the AMD card is the only one with direct evidence of capability in that API.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story of near-parity with different strengths. NVIDIA's average across its two tests is 39,568, while AMD's average across its three tests is 38,706. Both cards sit at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they land in the same performance tier overall despite their divergent architecture generations.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The AMD Radeon Pro 580X employs the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, made on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. That process gap is substantial — 8 nm versus 14 nm — which helps explain how NVIDIA fits 8,700 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, while AMD packs 5,700 million transistors onto a larger 232 mm² die. The transistor densities tell the story: NVIDIA achieves 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter versus AMD's 24.6 million.

The memory subsystems could hardly be more different. NVIDIA pairs 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 218.9 GB/s of bandwidth. That is more than double the bandwidth for AMD, and double the capacity. For texture-heavy workloads or large data sets, AMD's memory advantage is the kind of spec-sheet gap that often shows up in real-world results even when raw compute numbers are close.

Compute resources also diverge. The RTX A500 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 580X has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. AMD's texture rate is 172.8 GTexel/s versus NVIDIA's 98.37 GTexel/s, a 75% advantage. NVIDIA, however, counters with dedicated ray tracing cores (16) and tensor cores (64), neither of which exist on the AMD part. The RTX A500 Mobile also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the Radeon Pro 580X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support is also newer on NVIDIA (1.4 versus 1.3).

Clock behavior differs as well. The AMD chip runs higher base and boost clocks (1,100 MHz base, 1,200 MHz boost) compared to NVIDIA's 832 MHz base and 1,537 MHz boost. The boost behavior means NVIDIA can ramp higher under load, while AMD stays more conservative. Power consumption reflects the architecture gap: NVIDIA is rated at 30 W TDP, AMD at 185 W. That is a 155 W difference, which has massive implications for thermal design and system integration.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks present a clear trade-off. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A500 Mobile posts 41,263 against the Radeon Pro 580X's 36,426. The 13.3% delta is NVIDIA's strongest showing and suggests that the Ampere architecture's compute throughput — 6.296 TFLOPS FP32 versus AMD's 5.530 TFLOPS — translates directly into OpenCL performance. NVIDIA also leads in pixel rate (49.18 GPixel/s versus 38.40 GPixel/s) despite the AMD card's higher clock speeds.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The Radeon Pro 580X scores 40,115 versus 37,873 for the RTX A500 Mobile, a 5.6% margin. This is interesting because the AMD card's raw FP32 is lower, yet it wins in Vulkan. The likely explanation lies in the memory subsystem: 218.9 GB/s bandwidth and a 256-bit bus give AMD a substantial data throughput advantage that Vulkan workloads can exploit. The Radeon Pro 580X also has more TMUs (144 versus 64), which helps with texture-bound scenes.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RTX A500 Mobile's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 575 with an average score of 39,555 (0% delta), followed by the Pro 575X at 39,116 (+1.2% for NVIDIA) and the Pro WX 7100 at 40,063 (-1.2% for NVIDIA). The Radeon Pro 580X's rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A at 38,691 (0% delta) and the RTX 5080 Mobile at 38,349 (0.9% ahead for AMD). These rivalries confirm that both cards occupy a similar overall performance band, with the differences showing up mainly in API-specific tests.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 39,568, while the AMD Radeon Pro 580X averages 38,706. Both cards sit at the 82nd percentile among all GPUs.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A500 Mobile in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile scores 41,263 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to 36,426 for the Radeon Pro 580X, giving NVIDIA a 13.3% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 580X win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 580X wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 40,115 points versus 37,873 for the RTX A500 Mobile, a 5.6% margin. It also has a Geekbench Metal score of 39,577, which the NVIDIA card lacks.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 580X has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 218.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Only the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile has dedicated ray tracing cores (16) and tensor cores (64). The AMD Radeon Pro 580X has no equivalent hardware.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile is rated at 30 W TDP, while the Radeon Pro 580X is rated at 185 W TDP — a 155 W difference.

# The Verdict

The data points to two different use cases rather than a single winner. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is the choice for OpenCL-heavy compute workloads and for applications that leverage ray tracing or tensor cores — features the AMD card simply does not have. Its 13.3% OpenCL lead is decisive, and its 6.296 TFLOPS FP32 output is the higher raw compute figure. The 30 W TDP also makes it far easier to integrate into compact systems.

The AMD Radeon Pro 580X is the better pick for Vulkan-based graphics work and for scenarios requiring large memory pools. Its 5.6% Vulkan win, combined with 8 GB of VRAM and more than double the memory bandwidth (218.9 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s), makes it the stronger candidate for texture-heavy, high-resolution rendering. The Metal benchmark score (39,577) gives it a unique qualification for macOS environments that the NVIDIA part cannot match.

For users who prioritize modern API features, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and hardware ray tracing, the RTX A500 Mobile is the data-supported answer. For users who need memory capacity, Vulkan performance, or macOS compatibility, the Radeon Pro 580X is the logical selection. The 82nd percentile ranking for both confirms they are equals in the broader GPU landscape — the right choice depends entirely on the workload.

# Specification Differences

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

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

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

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 232 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 832 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1537 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 218.9 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 64 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

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

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

| FP32 | 6.296 TFLOPS | 5.530 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 185 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x HDMI 2.0b |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | 2019-03-17 |