GPU Comparison

The benchmark data places the NVIDIA A10G and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 in different performance tiers despite both being professional workstation cards. The NVIDIA A10G wins both shared head-to-head tests by substantial margins, yet the AMD card counters with a larger memory pool, higher pixel throughput, and a lower transistor density that hints at a different design philosophy. The data shows a clear split: raw compute throughput favors NVIDIA, while memory capacity and rasterization rates favor AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmark tests reveal a dominant performance gap for the NVIDIA A10G. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A10G scores 158,063 against the W6800’s 121,808, a delta of 29.8% in NVIDIA’s favor. The Vulkan test shows an even wider margin: the A10G posts 145,863 while the W6800 trails at 109,961, a 32.6% advantage for NVIDIA. These are not marginal differences; they represent a consistent and significant lead across two different compute APIs.

The A10G’s average benchmark score of 151,963 reinforces this picture. That average places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X at 160,671, a 5.4% gap. The W6800, by contrast, averages 135,396, sitting in the 96th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230, a negligible 0.1% difference. The A10G’s lead over the W6800 in average score is roughly 12.2%, a figure that aligns with the individual test deltas.

Interpreting these numbers requires context. The OpenCL test measures general compute throughput, where the A10G’s 31.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 288 tensor cores provide a structural advantage. The Vulkan test leans on graphics and async compute, where the A10G’s 72 RT cores and 288 TMUs again outpace the W6800’s 60 RT cores and 240 TMUs. The W6800’s higher boost clock of 2322 MHz versus 1710 MHz cannot compensate for the A10G’s larger shading unit count of 9216 versus 3840. In short, the A10G wins on sheer execution width, and the benchmark scores confirm it.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA A10G is the superior compute performer and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the superior memory-capacity option. If the workload is compute-bound, the A10G is the clear choice. Its 29.8% OpenCL lead and 32.6% Vulkan lead are decisive, and its 97th percentile ranking versus the W6800’s 96th percentile reinforces that position. The A10G also carries a lower TDP of 150 W versus 250 W, meaning it achieves higher performance with lower power draw, a double win for data center density.

However, the W6800 is not without a case. It offers 32 GB of memory versus the A10G’s 24 GB, a 33% capacity advantage that matters for large datasets or high-resolution textures. It also has six mini-DisplayPort outputs, while the A10G has none, making the W6800 the only option for direct display connectivity. The W6800’s FP16 throughput of 35.67 TFLOPS exceeds the A10G’s 31.52 TFLOPS, though that comes with a 2:1 ratio versus the A10G’s 1:1, meaning the A10G’s FP16 is more usable for certain precision-sensitive workloads.

The verdict depends on the use case. For headless compute, AI inference, or render farms, the A10G wins outright. For a workstation with local display output and memory-hungry tasks, the W6800 is the pragmatic pick. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a split decision based on workload priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10G wins in raw compute throughput, as evidenced by its 29.8% OpenCL and 32.6% Vulkan advantages. It also wins in memory bandwidth, posting 600.2 GB/s against the W6800’s 512.0 GB/s, a 17.2% lead. This combination of higher compute and higher bandwidth makes the A10G the choice for tasks like dense matrix operations, ray tracing, and shader-heavy workloads. Its 288 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI acceleration, which the W6800 lacks entirely. The A10G’s lower 150 W TDP and single-slot design also make it easier to deploy in multi-GPU servers, where power and space are constraints.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in memory capacity, with 32 GB versus 24 GB, a 33% advantage. It also leads in pixel rate, posting 222.9 GPixel/s against the A10G’s 164.2 GPixel/s, a 35.7% edge. Texture rate follows suit: 557.3 GTexel/s versus 492.5 GTexel/s, a 13.2% lead. These numbers indicate the W6800 is better suited for rasterization-heavy tasks, such as real-time 3D rendering in viewport environments, where fill-rate and texture throughput are critical. Its six display outputs also make it a natural fit for multi-monitor setups or VR applications, which the A10G cannot support due to its lack of outputs.

The W6800 also wins on FP16 throughput in raw TFLOPS, though the 2:1 ratio means that performance comes at half the rate of FP32, whereas the A10G’s 1:1 ratio offers consistent precision. The W6800’s 7 nm process node from TSMC versus the A10G’s 8 nm from Samsung gives AMD a slight transistor density advantage of 51.5M/mm² versus 45.1M/mm², but this does not translate into higher compute scores in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A10G has an average benchmark score of 151,963, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 135,396. The A10G also ranks in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, versus the W6800’s 96th percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A10G scores 145,863 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 109,961. This represents a 32.6% advantage for the A10G.

Q: Does the AMD card have more memory than the NVIDIA card?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA A10G has 24 GB. The W6800 also has a 256-bit bus, though its bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s is lower than the A10G’s 600.2 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports direct display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA A10G has no display outputs and is designed for headless server use.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA A10G delivers 31.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 delivers 17.83 TFLOPS. The A10G’s lead is approximately 76.8% in this metric.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card?

A: The NVIDIA A10G’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB, with an average score of 150,305 and a 1.1% delta. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA A10M, with an average score of 135,230 and a 0.1% delta.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA A10G is built on the GA102 chip using the Ampere architecture on an 8 nm process from Samsung. It contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1M/mm². The GPU includes 9,216 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. Its FP32 and FP16 performance are both rated at 31.52 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The A10G is a single-slot card with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a 150 W TDP.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is built on the Navi 21 chip using the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC. It contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5M/mm². The GPU includes 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 RT cores; it has no tensor cores. Its FP32 performance is 17.83 TFLOPS, while FP16 performance is 35.67 TFLOPS, reflecting a 2:1 ratio. The W6800 is a dual-slot card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 250 W TDP.

The architectures diverge in their compute priorities. Ampere’s tensor cores and 1:1 FP16 ratio favor AI and mixed-precision workloads. RDNA 2.0’s higher FP16 throughput and lack of tensor cores favor graphics tasks that rely on shader math. The A10G’s larger die and higher transistor count give it more raw execution units, while the W6800’s smaller die and higher density suggest a more efficient layout for its narrower focus.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. The NVIDIA A10G has a base clock of 1320 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has a base clock of 1575 MHz and a boost clock of 2322 MHz. The A10G’s memory runs at 1563 MHz with 12.5 Gbps effective, while the W6800’s memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also differ: the A10G offers 24 GB with a 384-bit bus and 600.2 GB/s bandwidth; the W6800 offers 32 GB with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A10G has a pixel rate of 164.2 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 492.5 GTexel/s; the W6800 has a pixel rate of 222.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 557.3 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design diverge significantly. The A10G has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W; the W6800 has a TDP of 250 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The A10G is single-slot, while the W6800 is dual-slot. The W6800 is also taller and wider: 120 mm by 50 mm versus the A10G’s 112 mm height with no listed width. Both share the same length of 267 mm.

Both cards use PCIe 4.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A10G has no display outputs; the W6800 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A10G was released on 2021-04-11, and the W6800 on 2021-06-07. Both are end-of-life products. The W6800 has a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD; the A10G has no listed launch MSRP.