AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear overall winner in raw benchmark terms, but the decision is far more nuanced when considering the intended use case. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 outpaces the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile in both recorded tests, with an average benchmark score of 136472 against 113944. That is a substantial 19.8% gap in aggregate performance, placing the AMD part in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA sits at the 94th percentile. However, the RTX A5500 Mobile is a portable device, and the Radeon PRO V620 is a dual-slot, 300 W desktop card with no display outputs. The data suggests these are not direct competitors in physical form, so the verdict splits based on whether the priority is raw compute density or a mobile form factor.

For a workstation requiring maximum compute throughput in a fixed chassis, the AMD Radeon PRO V620 is the statistical choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks and offers double the memory capacity at 32 GB versus 16 GB. For a mobile workstation where portability is non-negotiable, the RTX A5500 Mobile is the only option that fits, despite its lower scores. The RTX A5500 Mobile's 165 W TDP and lack of power connectors suggest it is designed for integration into laptops, whereas the Radeon PRO V620's 700 W suggested PSU and dual 8-pin connectors demand a desktop platform. The data implies a system-level decision: choose the AMD for stationary compute, choose the NVIDIA for on-the-go rendering.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two is stark, reflecting different design philosophies from AMD and NVIDIA. The Radeon PRO V620 uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip with Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node advantage is notable: the AMD chip packs 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5M / mm². The NVIDIA chip has 22,000 million transistors on a 496 mm² die, with a lower density of 44.4M / mm². This suggests AMD achieved higher packing efficiency, though the NVIDIA chip runs at significantly lower clocks.

Clock speeds diverge dramatically. The Radeon PRO V620 has a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. The RTX A5500 Mobile is much more conservative, with a base of 975 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. This 700 MHz boost difference explains why the AMD card achieves higher pixel and texture rates despite having fewer shading units. The Radeon PRO V620 has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, while the RTX A5500 Mobile has 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has more raw shader cores but fewer texture and pixel units, which impacts specific workloads.

Ray tracing and tensor capabilities also differ. The AMD card has 72 ray accelerators but no tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 58 RT cores and 232 tensor cores. This tensor core presence is a major architectural differentiator, implying the RTX A5500 Mobile is better suited for AI-accelerated tasks, even though the benchmark data does not directly measure that. Memory subsystems are identical in bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s, both using GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but the capacity differs: 32 GB on AMD versus 16 GB on NVIDIA. The AMD card's FP32 output is 20.28 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card achieves 22.27 TFLOPS, meaning the NVIDIA part has a higher raw floating-point throughput despite lower clocks. However, the AMD card's FP16 output is 40.55 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card's FP16 is 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), showing a different approach to half-precision compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows the AMD Radeon PRO V620 wins both recorded tests, but the margin varies wildly. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD scores 128580 against the NVIDIA's 124287, a modest 3.5% lead. This is a close result, suggesting that in general-purpose compute with OpenCL, the two cards are nearly equivalent. The NVIDIA card's higher shader count and FP32 throughput likely offset the AMD card's clock advantage. This narrow margin places the Radeon PRO V620 among rivals like the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135774, 0.5% delta) and the NVIDIA A10M (135230, 0.9% delta), showing it sits in a competitive cluster where small differences separate cards.

The Vulkan test tells a completely different story. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 144364, while the RTX A5500 Mobile scores 103601. That is a 39.3% advantage for AMD, a massive gap that cannot be explained by clock speeds alone. The architectural differences in how each card handles Vulkan's draw calls and command buffers likely play a role. The AMD card's higher texture rate of 633.6 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 281.6 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s, suggest it can fill geometry and textures much faster. The RTX A5500 Mobile's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114395, -0.4% delta), indicating it performs well in its own right, but the Vulkan delta is an outlier that drags its average down. The RTX A5500 Mobile's average score of 113944 is heavily influenced by its weak Vulkan showing, meaning OpenCL is its stronger API.

The wins tally is 2 for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA. The average benchmark score difference is 22528 points, which is 19.8% higher for AMD. This is a significant overall lead, but the OpenCL result shows the NVIDIA card is not without merit in specific workloads. The data suggests that if a workload relies on Vulkan, the AMD card is the clear choice; if it relies on OpenCL, the race is much tighter.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620 has an average benchmark score of 136472, which is 19.8% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile's 113944.

Q: How much faster is the AMD card in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 144364 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 39.3% higher than the RTX A5500 Mobile's 103601.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any advantage in raw compute throughput?

A: Yes, the RTX A5500 Mobile has higher FP32 throughput at 22.27 TFLOPS compared to the AMD card's 20.28 TFLOPS, and it has more shading units (7424 vs 4608).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory. Both use a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards comparable in physical size?

A: No, the AMD card is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length with a 300 W TDP, while the NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions and a 165 W TDP, indicating a mobile form factor.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile has 232 tensor cores, while the AMD Radeon PRO V620 has no tensor cores listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO V620 wins outright in every benchmark category recorded. In OpenCL, it leads by 3.5%, and in Vulkan, it leads by 39.3%. This makes it the superior choice for any workload that relies on these APIs, particularly Vulkan-based rendering or compute. The AMD card also wins on memory capacity, offering 32 GB versus 16 GB, which is critical for large datasets or high-resolution textures. Its higher pixel rate (281.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (633.6 GTexel/s) suggest it excels in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rasterization or heavy post-processing effects. The Radeon PRO V620's FP16 throughput of 40.55 TFLOPS is nearly double its FP32 rate, indicating a strong advantage in workloads that can utilize half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference or image processing tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile wins in the mobile form factor category by default, as it is the only one designed for portable devices. Its 165 W TDP and lack of power connectors mean it can be integrated into a laptop, whereas the AMD card requires a 700 W PSU and dual 8-pin connectors. The NVIDIA card also has higher FP32 throughput (22.27 TFLOPS) and more shading units (7424), which could translate to better performance in compute tasks that are not bottlenecked by memory bandwidth or texture fill. The presence of 232 tensor cores gives it a potential edge in AI-accelerated workloads, though the benchmark data does not measure this. The RTX A5500 Mobile's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114395, -0.4% delta), showing it is competitive with a data-center card from the previous generation.

The data implies a use-case split: for stationary workstations with no power or space constraints, the AMD Radeon PRO V620 is the clear performer. For mobile workstations where the GPU must fit in a laptop chassis, the RTX A5500 Mobile is the only viable option, and its OpenCL performance is respectable, trailing by only 3.5% in that specific test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node differs: AMD uses 7 nm at TSMC, while NVIDIA uses 8 nm at Samsung. Transistor counts are 26,800 million for AMD versus 22,000 million for NVIDIA, and die sizes are 520 mm² versus 496 mm². Transistor density is 51.5M / mm² for AMD and 44.4M / mm² for NVIDIA. Clock speeds are starkly different, with AMD's base at 1825 MHz and boost at 2200 MHz, compared to NVIDIA's base of 975 MHz and boost of 1500 MHz. Memory size differs significantly at 32 GB for AMD and 16 GB for NVIDIA, though both use GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with identical 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The compute units differ: AMD has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware is present in both, with 72 RT units on AMD and 58 RT cores on NVIDIA, but only NVIDIA has 232 tensor cores. Pixel rate is 281.6 GPixel/s for AMD versus 144.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rate is 633.6 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 20.28 TFLOPS for AMD and 22.27 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, but FP16 output is 40.55 TFLOPS for AMD and 22.27 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. Power consumption differs greatly: AMD has a 300 W TDP with dual 8-pin connectors and a 700 W suggested PSU, while NVIDIA has a 165 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

Physical dimensions are listed only for AMD, at 267 mm length, 120 mm height, and 50 mm width, with a dual-slot form factor. NVIDIA has no dimensions listed, consistent with its mobile positioning. Display outputs also differ: AMD has no outputs, while NVIDIA's are described as "Portable Device Dependent." Both support PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates are over four months apart, with AMD launching on 2021-11-03 and NVIDIA on 2022-03-21. Both are end-of-life products, with AMD's predecessor being Radeon Pro Vega and NVIDIA's being Quadro Turing-M, and NVIDIA has a successor listed as Ada-MW while AMD has none.