AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 and NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile represent two distinct generations of professional GPU design, with the data showing a clear overall performance advantage for the NVIDIA part despite its lower power draw. The RTX A5000 Mobile wins 7 of 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including decisive victories in compute-heavy workloads, while the Radeon Pro W5700 counters with wins in legacy DirectX 9 performance and 2D graphics tests. The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story: the AMD card averages 25,726 points across all tests, while the NVIDIA card averages 24,763, meaning the W5700 actually holds a slight lead in overall average score despite losing most individual tests. This paradox stems from the W5700's massive 42.9% advantage in the PassMark G2D test, where it scores 899 versus 629. The RTX A5000 Mobile sits at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro W5700 sits at the 71st percentile, placing both cards nearly identically in the overall performance distribution.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile is the superior choice for compute-intensive professional workloads, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 retains advantages in specific legacy and 2D scenarios. The RTX A5000 Mobile delivers a 32.7% higher Geekbench OpenCL score (110,877 versus 74,613) and a 19.8% higher Vulkan score (88,144 versus 70,706), making it the stronger option for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific computing, and modern API-based applications. Its PassMark G3D score of 15,779 also tops the W5700's 14,520 by 8%, indicating better raw 3D performance in DirectX-based workloads. For professionals working primarily with modern compute frameworks, the RTX A5000 Mobile is the data-backed pick.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 is not without merit. Its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 225 beats the NVIDIA's 169 by 33.1%, and its G2D score of 899 crushes the NVIDIA's 629 by 42.9%. These wins suggest the W5700 remains relevant for older software stacks, 2D design work, or environments where legacy API support is critical. The W5700 also holds a higher average benchmark score (25,726 versus 24,763), driven by its outlier G2D performance, which shifts the overall average despite losing most other tests. The choice ultimately depends on workload: modern compute and 3D rendering favor NVIDIA, while legacy compatibility and 2D throughput favor AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 averages 25,726 points across all benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile averages 24,763 points, giving AMD a ~3.9% edge in overall average despite losing most individual comparisons.

Q: How large is the NVIDIA card's advantage in compute performance?

A: The RTX A5000 Mobile leads by 32.7% in Geekbench OpenCL (110,877 versus 74,613) and by 19.8% in Geekbench Vulkan (88,144 versus 70,706), representing its largest head-to-head wins.

Q: Does the AMD card win any modern 3D benchmarks?

A: No. The RTX A5000 Mobile wins all DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests, with deltas ranging from 21.8% to 25% in NVIDIA's favor, plus an 8% win in PassMark G3D.

Q: What explains the AMD card's higher average score despite losing most tests?

A: The W5700's PassMark G2D score of 899 versus 629 is a 42.9% margin, and its DirectX 9 score of 225 versus 169 is a 33.1% margin. These two large wins pull its average up enough to offset losses in the other seven tests.

Q: Which card has more memory, and does it affect benchmark results?

A: The RTX A5000 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the W5700 has 8 GB. Both cards share the same 256-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, but the NVIDIA's double capacity does not translate into a higher average benchmark score.

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

A: The AMD card sits at the 71st percentile, and the NVIDIA card sits at the 70th percentile, making them effectively peers in the overall performance distribution despite their generational differences.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 uses the Navi 10 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip based on Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 44.4M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs nearly 69% more transistors into a 56% larger die.

The shading resources differ dramatically. The W5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, while the RTX A5000 Mobile has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. This represents a 2.67x increase in shading units, a 33% increase in TMUs, and a 50% increase in ROPs for the NVIDIA card. Critically, the Ampere architecture introduces dedicated hardware that RDNA 1.0 lacks: the RTX A5000 Mobile includes 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the W5700. This architectural gap explains why the NVIDIA card achieves 19.35 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus 8.663 TFLOPS for AMD, a 2.23x advantage. The FP16 picture is equally stark: NVIDIA delivers 19.35 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while AMD delivers 17.33 TFLOPS but at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the AMD's FP16 throughput is halved in practice.

API support also diverges. The W5700 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RTX A5000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), reflecting the Ampere architecture's newer feature set. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, keeping them on equal footing for those APIs. The NVIDIA card's inclusion of ray tracing and tensor cores positions it for future-proofing in AI and ray-traced workloads, while the AMD card's simpler architecture trades those capabilities for a lower 205 W TDP—though notably, the NVIDIA card draws only 150 W despite its larger transistor count and higher performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node separates them: AMD uses 7 nm TSMC, NVIDIA uses 8 nm Samsung. Transistor counts diverge sharply at 10,300 million versus 17,400 million, and die sizes at 251 mm² versus 392 mm². Clock speeds favor AMD on paper: the W5700 runs at 1400 MHz base and 1880 MHz boost, while the RTX A5000 Mobile runs at 900 MHz base and 1575 MHz boost. However, the NVIDIA card's much higher core count (6,144 versus 2,304 shading units) more than compensates for the lower clocks, achieving higher pixel rate (151.2 GPixel/s versus 120.3 GPixel/s), texture rate (302.4 GTexel/s versus 270.7 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (19.35 TFLOPS versus 8.663 TFLOPS).

Memory capacity is a significant differentiator: 8 GB GDDR6 on the AMD versus 16 GB GDDR6 on the NVIDIA, though both use a 256-bit bus and achieve identical 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. Power requirements flip the expected script: the AMD card draws 205 W with a 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connector setup and a suggested 550 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card draws only 150 W and requires no power connectors, reflecting its mobile-oriented design. Physical dimensions only exist for the AMD card at 267 mm length and 111 mm height, being a dual-slot desktop card, while the NVIDIA card's dimensions are portable-device dependent. The AMD card offers 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C outputs, whereas the NVIDIA's display outputs are listed as portable-device dependent. Production status shows both as end-of-life, with the AMD released on 2019-11-18 and the NVIDIA on 2021-04-11. The AMD's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA's predecessor is the Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a consistent pattern of NVIDIA dominance in modern APIs and compute workloads, interrupted by two notable AMD victories. The largest margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX A5000 Mobile scores 110,877 against the W5700's 74,613, a 32.7% advantage. This compute-heavy test highlights the NVIDIA card's superior shading unit count and tensor core acceleration. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar trend: 88,144 versus 70,706, a 19.8% win for NVIDIA, demonstrating better performance in cross-platform graphics APIs.

The PassMark DirectX suite tells a nuanced story. In DirectX 10, NVIDIA wins 115 versus 88, a 23.5% margin. DirectX 11 shows 133 versus 104, a 21.8% margin. DirectX 12 delivers NVIDIA's smallest modern-API win: 72 versus 54, a 25% margin. The DirectX 9 test flips the script dramatically: AMD wins 225 versus 169, a 33.1% margin—the largest percentage win in either direction. This suggests AMD's architecture retains superior efficiency in older DirectX pipelines, possibly due to driver optimization or architectural design choices in RDNA 1.0.

The 2D and compute split is equally revealing. PassMark G2D delivers AMD's biggest win: 899 versus 629, a commanding 42.9% margin. This indicates the W5700 excels at 2D rasterization and desktop composition tasks, which could matter for CAD or design software that relies heavily on 2D rendering. However, PassMark G3D reverses this: NVIDIA wins 15,779 versus 14,520, an 8% margin, showing better overall 3D throughput. The PassMark GPU Compute test narrows the gap considerably: NVIDIA wins 6,945 versus 6,495, a modest 6.5% margin. This is NVIDIA's smallest win in the entire suite, suggesting the AMD card's compute capabilities are closer than its raw FP32 numbers would imply, though the Geekbench OpenCL results contradict that interpretation with a much larger NVIDIA lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 carves out a specific niche based on its two head-to-head victories and its higher average benchmark score. Its 42.9% win in PassMark G2D makes it the clear choice for workloads that stress 2D rendering, such as desktop publishing, schematic design, or legacy CAD interfaces where 2D viewport performance dominates. Its 33.1% win in DirectX 9 suggests strong compatibility with older software ecosystems, potentially including legacy engineering or visualization tools that have not migrated to modern APIs. The W5700's higher average score of 25,726 versus 24,763 also means that, across a diverse mix of workloads, it may deliver more balanced overall performance. Its 205 W TDP with dual power connectors positions it as a desktop workstation card with predictable power delivery, and its 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs plus USB Type-C provide extensive multi-monitor connectivity options.

The NVIDIA RTX A5000 Mobile wins everywhere else, and its victories span the most demanding categories. Its 32.7% Geekbench OpenCL lead and 19.8% Vulkan lead make it the superior choice for compute-intensive professional applications like scientific simulation, machine learning inference, and GPU-accelerated rendering. The 2.23x FP32 throughput (19.35 versus 8.663 TFLOPS), combined with 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores, gives it capabilities the AMD card simply cannot match in modern workloads. Its wins in DirectX 10, 11, and 12 (with margins of 23.5%, 21.8%, and 25% respectively) make it the better option for contemporary 3D applications, including modern game engines, 3D modeling, and video editing. The 8% PassMark G3D advantage and 6.5% GPU Compute win reinforce its overall 3D and compute superiority. Its 16 GB memory capacity doubles the AMD's 8 GB, providing headroom for large datasets, and its lower 150 W TDP with no power connectors makes it suitable for mobile workstations where power efficiency matters. The RTX A5000 Mobile also benefits from DirectX 12 Ultimate support, offering the latest API features that the W5700's DirectX 12 (12_1) cannot provide.