AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 wins all nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Radeon Pro W5700. Its average benchmark score is 26,683 versus 25,726 for the AMD card, a difference of roughly 3.7% in aggregate.

Q: How large is the performance gap in compute-heavy workloads?

A: The largest single gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX A4000 scores 127,645 against 70,706 for the Radeon Pro W5700, an 80.5% advantage. In Passmark GPU Compute, the A4000 leads by 50.3% (9,760 versus 6,495).

Q: Does the Radeon Pro W5700 win any benchmark category?

A: No. The data shows zero wins for the AMD card across all nine tested workloads, which include DirectX 9 through 12, OpenCL, Vulkan, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute.

Q: How do the two cards compare in legacy DirectX performance?

A: The RTX A4000 leads in every DirectX test. The smallest margin is DirectX 9 (240 versus 225, a 6.7% delta), while the largest is DirectX 11 (158 versus 104, a 51.9% delta). DirectX 12 shows a 33.3% advantage for the A4000.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RTX A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus and identical 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the cards compare in percentile ranking against all GPUs?

A: The RTX A4000 sits at the 72nd percentile, while the Radeon Pro W5700 sits at the 71st percentile. Both are effectively in the same tier, despite the A4000's consistent head-to-head victories.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 is built on the GA104 chip using the Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. The die contains 17,400 million transistors across a 392 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700, by contrast, uses the Navi 10 chip on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 10,300 million transistors into a smaller 251 mm² die, with a density of 41.0 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The RTX A4000 features 6,144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. It also includes 48 dedicated ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The Radeon Pro W5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. This structural difference explains why the A4000's FP32 throughput is 19.17 TFLOPS versus 8.663 TFLOPS for the AMD card — the NVIDIA part has nearly 2.2 times the raw single-precision compute capability.

Clock behavior also diverges. The Radeon Pro W5700 runs at a 1,400 MHz base and 1,880 MHz boost, significantly higher than the RTX A4000's 735 MHz base and 1,560 MHz boost. The AMD card's higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller shader count, but not enough to close the gap. FP16 performance tells a different story: the A4000 achieves 19.17 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the W5700 reaches 17.33 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio — meaning the AMD card's FP16 throughput is higher than its FP32, a characteristic of RDNA 1.0 design.

API support also differs. The RTX A4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro W5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card's newer DirectX feature level aligns with its additional hardware capabilities in ray tracing and tensor operations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the NVIDIA RTX A4000 across all nine tested workloads. The most decisive victory is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A4000 scores 127,645 against the W5700's 70,706 — an 80.5% lead. This gap likely reflects the combination of the A4000's higher shader count and its dedicated tensor cores, which can accelerate certain compute paths in Vulkan workloads.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a 41.7% advantage for the A4000 (105,739 versus 74,613). This is a substantial margin, though smaller than the Vulkan gap. The Passmark GPU Compute test tells a similar story, with the A4000 leading 9,760 to 6,495, a 50.3% delta. These compute-oriented benchmarks consistently place the NVIDIA card in a higher performance class.

DirectX workloads show a consistent pattern with varying magnitudes. The smallest delta is in DirectX 9 (240 versus 225, a 6.7% lead for the A4000) — a legacy API where both cards perform relatively close. DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 show larger gaps: 43.2% (126 versus 88) and 51.9% (158 versus 104) respectively. DirectX 12 lands in between at 33.3% (72 versus 54). The A4000's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and dedicated ray tracing hardware likely contribute to its advantage in the modern API.

Rasterization performance, measured by Passmark G3D, gives the A4000 a 34% lead (19,459 versus 14,520). The 2D test shows a smaller but still clear margin: 1,024 versus 899, a 13.9% delta. Across all these workloads, the RTX A4000's advantage ranges from a modest 6.7% to a dominant 80.5%, with no category where the Radeon Pro W5700 manages to pull ahead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A4000 | AMD Radeon Pro W5700 |

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

| Chip | GA104 | Navi 10 |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

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

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 10,300 million |

| Die size | 392 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor density | 44.4M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 735 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1560 MHz | 1880 MHz |

| Memory size | 16 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR6 |

| Shading units | 6144 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 192 | 144 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT cores | 48 | None |

| Tensor cores | 192 | None |

| Pixel rate | 149.8 GPixel/s | 120.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 299.5 GTexel/s | 270.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 19.17 TFLOPS | 8.663 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) | 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 140 W | 205 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a + 1x USB Type-C |

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

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release date | 2021-04-11 | 2019-11-18 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | None |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 799 USD |

The two cards share the same memory bus width (256 bit), memory type (GDDR6), effective memory clock (14 Gbps), and memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s). Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces and support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The A4000 is the newer card by roughly a year and a half, and it draws 65 W less power while delivering substantially higher compute throughput.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear recommendation for most professional workloads: the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the stronger performer. It wins every single head-to-head test, with an average benchmark score of 26,683 versus 25,726 for the AMD Radeon Pro W5700. The A4000's advantages are most pronounced in compute-heavy tasks — Vulkan shows an 80.5% lead and GPU Compute shows a 50.3% lead — which makes it the better choice for users whose work involves general-purpose GPU computing, machine learning inference, or other parallel workloads that can leverage its tensor cores and higher FP32 throughput.

The Radeon Pro W5700 does have some merits in the data. Its higher boost clock (1,880 MHz versus 1,560 MHz) and smaller process node (7 nm versus 8 nm) suggest better architectural efficiency per clock. It also offers five display outputs plus a USB Type-C port, compared to four DisplayPort outputs on the A4000. For users with multi-display setups requiring more than four outputs, the W5700's display configuration might be the deciding factor. Its launch MSRP was 799 USD, though the A4000's launch price is not listed in the data.

However, the W5700's limitations are significant for modern workloads. It lacks dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, which the A4000 provides. Its 8 GB memory capacity is half that of the A4000, which could be a constraint for large datasets or high-resolution texture work. The W5700 also draws 205 W versus 140 W for the A4000, requires a 550 W suggested PSU versus 300 W, and takes up a dual-slot footprint versus single-slot. The A4000's density advantages — more transistors in a larger die, higher transistor density per square millimeter, and nearly 2.2 times the FP32 throughput — translate directly into the benchmark results.

The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story: at 72nd versus 71st percentile, both cards sit in the same overall tier relative to all GPUs. The A4000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.5% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (1.3% behind), while the W5700 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.1% behind) and AMD Radeon RX 6700M (0.4% ahead). This suggests that while the A4000 is consistently faster than the W5700 in direct comparison, neither card is dramatically positioned above the other in the broader GPU landscape.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, ray tracing capability, and memory capacity, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the data-backed choice. For users who need more display outputs, prefer the AMD ecosystem, or require the higher boost clock for specific latency-sensitive tasks, the Radeon Pro W5700 remains a viable option — but the benchmark evidence shows it will trail the A4000 in virtually every measurable workload.