AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA RTX A5500 in the two shared benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 against the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II's 99,048, a 76.3% delta. That is a substantial margin, placing the NVIDIA card far ahead in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows somewhat but remains lopsided: the RTX A5500 posts 155,797 versus the Radeon Pro Vega II's 99,621, a 56.4% delta. The NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head tests, giving it 2 wins to 0 for AMD.

Interpreting these scores against the broader database, the RTX A5500's average benchmark score is 165,217, which places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro Vega II's average is 109,617, sitting in the 94th percentile. While both are high-end parts, the absolute difference in average score is roughly 55,600 points, a gap that reflects the generational and architectural divide between the two. The RTX A5500's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 at 164,894 (0.2% slower), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094 (0.5% faster), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X at 168,574 (2% faster). The Radeon Pro Vega II's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 at 110,725 (1% faster) and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944 (3.8% faster). Notably, the desktop RTX A5500 outperforms even the mobile version of itself by a clear margin when compared through their respective nearest-rival sets.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling. A 76.3% delta is not a marginal improvement; it indicates that the RTX A5500's architecture handles this workload far more efficiently. The Vulkan result, while still a decisive win for NVIDIA, shows a smaller relative gap, suggesting that the Radeon Pro Vega II's GCN architecture is less disadvantaged in that API. However, no benchmark in the database shows the AMD card winning or even tying, so the overall picture remains one-sided.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 has an average benchmark score of 165,217, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II scores 109,617. The RTX A5500 also ranks in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Radeon Pro Vega II's 94th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 versus the Radeon Pro Vega II's 99,048, a delta of 76.3% in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head tests, the RTX A5500 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD card has zero wins in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro Vega II has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus. The AMD card offers more capacity and a wider bus, but the NVIDIA card has higher effective bandwidth at 768.0 GB/s versus 825.3 GB/s for AMD.

Q: Are these cards production statuses the same?

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life. The RTX A5500 was released on 2022-03-21, while the Radeon Pro Vega II was released on 2019-06-02.

Q: What APIs do they support?

A: The RTX A5500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro Vega II supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is built on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA102 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process by Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II uses the older GCN 5.1 architecture, based on the Vega 20 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It contains 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 40.0 million per mm².

The RTX A5500's Ampere architecture includes dedicated ray tracing cores (80) and tensor cores (320), which are absent from the Radeon Pro Vega II, as that card has null values for both RT cores and tensor cores. This is a fundamental feature gap: the NVIDIA card is designed for real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, while the AMD card predates those specialized hardware blocks. The shading unit count also differs dramatically: the RTX A5500 has 10,240 shaders, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the Radeon Pro Vega II has 4,096 shaders, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 2.5 times more shaders on the NVIDIA side.

The clock speeds tell a different story. The Radeon Pro Vega II runs at a base clock of 1574 MHz and boost of 1720 MHz, significantly higher than the RTX A5500's 1080 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost. However, the architectural efficiency and sheer width of the NVIDIA chip compensate for the lower clocks. The FP32 compute rating for the RTX A5500 is 34.10 TFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro Vega II manages only 14.09 TFLOPS. In FP16, the NVIDIA card sustains 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the AMD card reaches 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), meaning the AMD's FP16 throughput is achieved by halving the FP32 rate.

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The RTX A5500 uses GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Vega II uses HBM2 across a 4096-bit bus, delivering 825.3 GB/s. The AMD card has more memory (32 GB vs 24 GB) and a wider bus, but the NVIDIA card's smaller capacity is paired with a more modern memory controller. The bus interface also differs: the RTX A5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Radeon Pro Vega II uses Apple MPX, indicating its primary target is Apple's Mac Pro ecosystem.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every measurable specification. The RTX A5500 has a process node of 8 nm (Samsung), while the Radeon Pro Vega II uses 7 nm (TSMC). Transistor count is 28,300 million versus 13,230 million, and die size is 628 mm² versus 331 mm². The RTX A5500's base clock is 1080 MHz, boost 1665 MHz, and memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The Radeon Pro Vega II's base clock is 1574 MHz, boost 1720 MHz, and memory clock is 806 MHz (1612 Mbps effective).

Memory capacity: 24 GB GDDR6 versus 32 GB HBM2. Bus width: 384 bit versus 4096 bit. Bandwidth: 768.0 GB/s versus 825.3 GB/s. Shading units: 10,240 versus 4,096. TMUs: 320 versus 256. ROPs: 96 versus 64. RT cores: 80 versus null. Tensor cores: 320 versus null. Pixel rate: 159.8 GPixel/s versus 110.1 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 532.8 GTexel/s versus 440.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 34.10 TFLOPS versus 14.09 TFLOPS. FP16: 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 28.18 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 230 W versus 475 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus quad-slot. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus null. Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 850 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus Apple MPX. Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt.

The RTX A5500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro Vega II supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RTX A5500 has dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 112 mm (4.4 inches) in height; the Radeon Pro Vega II has no recorded dimensions. The RTX A5500 was released in 2022, the Radeon Pro Vega II in 2019, and both are end-of-life.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the superior performer in raw compute benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of 76.3% and 56.4%, and its average benchmark score of 165,217 is 50.7% higher than the Radeon Pro Vega II's 109,617. The RTX A5500 also holds a higher percentile rank (97th vs 94th). For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice.

However, the Radeon Pro Vega II is not without its advantages. It offers 32 GB of memory, 8 GB more than the RTX A5500, and a wider 4096-bit bus with slightly higher bandwidth (825.3 GB/s vs 768.0 GB/s). Its higher base and boost clocks (1574 MHz and 1720 MHz versus 1080 MHz and 1665 MHz) suggest a different design trade-off. The Radeon Pro Vega II's launch MSRP is 2,199 USD. But those specifications do not translate into benchmark wins in the database.

The RTX A5500's architecture includes RT and tensor cores, features the Radeon Pro Vega II lacks entirely. The NVIDIA card also consumes significantly less power (230 W versus 475 W), requires a smaller PSU (550 W versus 850 W), and occupies a dual-slot form factor instead of a quad-slot one. These practical advantages compound its performance lead.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In OpenCL, it is 76.3% ahead, and in Vulkan, it is 56.4% ahead. Its average benchmark score is 165,217, placing it in the 97th percentile. This makes it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks, GPU rendering, or any application that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan APIs. The presence of 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores also gives it capabilities in ray-traced workflows and AI inference, though those are not directly benchmarked here.

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, has specific strengths in its memory configuration. With 32 GB of HBM2 and a 4096-bit bus, it provides 825.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 57.3 GB/s more than the RTX A5500. This could be relevant for workloads that are bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, such as large dataset manipulation or certain scientific simulations. Its higher clock speeds (1720 MHz boost) may also help in lightly threaded tasks that do not scale across the full GPU.

The Radeon Pro Vega II's Apple MPX bus interface and Thunderbolt outputs indicate it is designed for Mac Pro systems, while the RTX A5500's PCIe 4.0 x16 and DisplayPort outputs suit a broader range of PC workstations. For users in an Apple ecosystem, the AMD card may be the only practical option. For everyone else, the data points firmly to the RTX A5500 as the higher-performing GPU. The delta in average score, 55,600 points, is too large to ignore, and the NVIDIA card's architectural advantages in RT and tensor cores make it more future-proof for emerging workloads.