AMD Radeon Pro VII vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two workstation cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230, while the AMD Radeon Pro VII manages 90,148. That is a 50% delta in favor of NVIDIA, a massive gap that dwarfs the differences seen among the A10M's nearest rivals. For context, the A10M sits within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472) and essentially ties the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218) and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396). The Pro VII, by contrast, trails the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872) by 4.7% and only leads the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466) by 5%, while sitting 6% above the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671).

What makes this 50-point gap in OpenCL particularly striking is the architectural gulf behind it. The A10M achieves 23.44 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Pro VII delivers 13.06 TFLOPS. Yet raw compute alone does not tell the full story. The A10M's nearest rivals all cluster within a narrow 1% band (135,218 to 136,472), suggesting that OpenCL performance in this segment is tightly packed — and the Pro VII is simply on the wrong side of that curve. The Pro VII's average benchmark score across all tests (97,131) further illustrates the divide, placing it 28% below the A10M's single-test average of 135,230. Even the Pro VII's best result in its own suite, the Geekbench Metal score of 108,383, would still trail the A10M's OpenCL score by 20%.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from opposite design philosophies. The A10M is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, using the GA102 chip fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The Pro VII relies on AMD's older GCN 5.1 architecture, with the Vega 20 chip on TSMC's 7 nm node. It contains just 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, for a density of 40.0 million per square millimeter. The process node advantage (7 nm vs 8 nm) helps AMD shrink the die, but NVIDIA's larger chip and higher transistor budget enable substantially more compute hardware.

The A10M fields 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 80 ROPs. It also includes 56 ray-tracing cores and 224 tensor cores — features entirely absent from the Pro VII, which has no RT or tensor hardware. The Pro VII counters with 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. While AMD has fewer shaders, its texture rate is actually higher: 408.0 GTexel/s versus 366.2 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The pixel rate also favors the A10M at 130.8 GPixel/s versus 108.8 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental split. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro VII uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 1.02 TB/s — more than double the bandwidth. This is a classic trade-off: NVIDIA prioritizes capacity, AMD prioritizes bandwidth. Clock speeds differ accordingly, with the Pro VII running at a 1400 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, while the A10M sits at 975 MHz base and 1635 MHz boost. The A10M's memory runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the Pro VII's HBM2 operates at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

Feature support also diverges. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro VII is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A10M has no display outputs, while the Pro VII offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors. The A10M is a single-slot card requiring an 8-pin EPS power connector with a 450 W suggested PSU; the Pro VII is dual-slot, needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin, and recommends a 600 W PSU. The A10M draws 150 W TDP, while the Pro VII draws 250 W.

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the A10M wins the only head-to-head test, and it wins by a substantial margin. In OpenCL, the A10M's 135,230 score versus the Pro VII's 90,148 represents a 50% advantage. This suggests workloads that rely on OpenCL compute — such as general GPGPU tasks, physics simulations, or certain rendering pipelines — will see substantially better performance on the NVIDIA card.

However, the Pro VII is not without its own strengths, even if they do not appear in the head-to-head data. Its 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the A10M's 500.2 GB/s, which could matter for memory-bound workloads that need to stream large datasets quickly. The Pro VII also offers display outputs, making it usable for direct visualization tasks, whereas the A10M is a compute-only card with no outputs. For FP16 workloads, the Pro VII's 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) exceeds the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning AMD's card actually has a higher peak half-precision throughput.

The A10M's 20 GB memory capacity versus 16 GB on the Pro VII gives it a 25% capacity advantage, which could be decisive for models or datasets that approach the 16 GB limit. The A10M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro VII tops out at DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, making the NVIDIA card more future-proof for newer graphics APIs.

The percentile ratings reinforce the stratification: the A10M sits at the 96th percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro VII sits at the 93rd. In a field where the A10M's nearest rivals are all within 1% of each other, the Pro VII's nearest rivals span a 6% range (from 91,671 to 101,872), indicating more volatility in its performance tier.

# FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA A10M delivers 23.44 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro VII's 13.06 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro VII has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth — more than double the bandwidth but 4 GB less capacity.

Q: Does the Pro VII have ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The Pro VII has no ray-tracing cores and no tensor cores. The A10M includes 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores.

Q: What is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The A10M scores 135,230 versus 90,148 for the Pro VII, a 50% difference in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: Can the Pro VII support newer graphics APIs?

A: The Pro VII supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The A10M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The Pro VII has six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A10M has no display outputs, making it compute-only.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A10M | AMD Radeon Pro VII |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | GCN 5.1 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 13,230 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 331 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 40.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1635 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 20 GB GDDR6 | 16 GB HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 320 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 500.2 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 7168 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 224 | 240 |

| ROPs | 80 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 56 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 224 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 130.8 GPixel/s | 108.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 366.2 GTexel/s | 408.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 23.44 TFLOPS | 13.06 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) | 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | None | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, 112 mm (4.4 inches) high | 305 mm (12 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high |

| Release Date | Not specified | 2020-05-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 1,899 USD |

# The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA A10M outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro VII by 50% in OpenCL, offers more memory capacity (20 GB vs 16 GB), draws less power (150 W vs 250 W), and occupies a single slot instead of two. The A10M also brings ray tracing, tensor cores, and newer API support, making it the more capable card for modern graphics and compute pipelines.

The Pro VII's advantages are narrower but real. Its 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth is exceptional, and its six display outputs make it suitable for visualization work that the A10M cannot handle. The Pro VII also has higher FP16 throughput (26.11 TFLOPS vs 23.44 TFLOPS), which could matter for specific half-precision workloads. For users who need direct display connectivity or are working with memory-bandwidth-bound problems that fit within 16 GB, the Pro VII remains a viable option.

Yet the benchmark gap is difficult to ignore. The A10M's OpenCL score places it at the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro VII sits at the 93rd. The A10M's nearest rivals all cluster within 1% of its score, indicating it is a stable performer in a tightly competitive tier. The Pro VII's nearest rivals span a wider range, with the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 leading it by 4.7% and the RTX A4500 trailing by 6%. This suggests the Pro VII's performance is more variable relative to its peers.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, API support, memory capacity, and power efficiency, the A10M is the data-backed choice. For users who require display outputs, need extreme memory bandwidth, or are working in FP16-heavy environments, the Pro VII offers unique strengths — but the 50% OpenCL deficit means those strengths come at a significant compute cost. The verdict, strictly from the data, favors NVIDIA for most workloads, with AMD's card carving out a niche for bandwidth-sensitive visualization tasks.