AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, one-sided outcome in the direct comparison between the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD card wins both, with decisive margins that separate the two products by a wide gulf in raw compute performance.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808 points, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile trails at 105,307. That works out to a 15.7% advantage for the AMD part. This is not a narrow edge; it is a substantial lead that reflects the fundamentally different positioning of these two products. The OpenCL workload exercises general-purpose compute across the full GPU, and the W6800's higher clock speeds and larger memory pool contribute to its superior showing.

The Geekbench Vulkan test widens the gap even further. Here, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 posts 109,961, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile manages only 76,960. The delta reaches 42.9%, a massive difference that dwarfs the OpenCL margin. Vulkan is a low-level API that can expose raw hardware throughput, and the AMD architecture clearly translates its resources into higher frame rates or compute throughput in this scenario. For any workload that relies on Vulkan for rendering or compute, the W6800 is in a different class entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the AMD card's average score across all recorded tests is 135,396, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA mobile part, by contrast, averages 91,134, which lands in the 93rd percentile. The percentile difference is smaller than the raw score gap, but the absolute numbers tell the story: the W6800 is roughly 48.5% higher in average score. That is not a typo, the average benchmark score of the AMD card is 135,396 versus 91,134 for the NVIDIA part.

The nearest rivals for each card put this into context. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 sits within 0.1% of the NVIDIA A10M (135,230) and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218), and it is actually 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472). These are all desktop-class or high-end workstation parts, and the W6800 trades blows with them. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, on the other hand, is 0.6% behind the desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466), while leading the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445) by 4.2% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108) by 4.6%. The mobile part is competitive within its own segment, but that segment is far below the W6800's tier.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate that the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in every recorded head-to-head test. There is no test in the database where the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile comes out ahead. The AMD card's victories span both OpenCL and Vulkan, which covers a broad range of compute and graphics workloads.

For OpenCL, the 15.7% lead means the W6800 is better suited for general-purpose GPU computing tasks that use this API. This includes many scientific, engineering, and data-processing applications that rely on OpenCL for acceleration. The margin is large enough that users moving from the NVIDIA mobile part to the AMD desktop card would notice a meaningful performance uplift in such workloads.

For Vulkan, the 42.9% advantage is even more pronounced. Vulkan is commonly used in modern game engines, real-time rendering, and some compute frameworks. The W6800's dominance here suggests it would be the preferred choice for any application that leverages Vulkan, whether for rendering, simulation, or other GPU-accelerated tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, despite its losses, does have structural advantages that are not captured in these two benchmark tests. It includes 184 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. Tensor cores accelerate AI and machine learning workloads such as deep learning inference and training, particularly with frameworks that use NVIDIA's CUDA ecosystem. The database does not list any tensor core benchmark for either card, so the exact performance delta in such tasks is not recorded, but the hardware presence is a clear qualitative differentiator.

The NVIDIA card also has a lower thermal design power of 140 W versus the AMD card's 250 W. This makes the NVIDIA part more appropriate for compact or mobile chassis where heat dissipation and power draw are constraints. The AMD card, being a desktop dual-slot card with a length of 267 mm, requires a larger chassis and a more robust cooling solution.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is fundamental, starting at the manufacturing process. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile uses an 8 nm process from Samsung. The smaller node gives AMD a transistor density advantage: the W6800 packs 26,800 million transistors into a die size of 520 mm², yielding 51.5 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, for a density of 44.4 million per mm². The AMD chip is physically larger and more transistor-dense.

The core configurations differ significantly. The AMD card has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines. It also has 60 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has 5,888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines, along with 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has more shading units by a wide margin, but the AMD card's higher clock speeds compensate in raw throughput.

Clock speeds tell the story. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 runs at a base clock of 1575 MHz and boosts to 2322 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile has a base of 930 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. The AMD card's boost clock is 54.8% higher than the NVIDIA part's boost clock. This clock advantage, combined with the architectural efficiency of RDNA 2.0, drives the benchmark results despite the NVIDIA card having 53.3% more shading units.

Memory configurations are similar in some respects but differ in capacity. Both cards use GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. However, the AMD card has 32 GB of memory, twice the 16 GB of the NVIDIA part. The memory clock is identical at 2000 MHz, with 16 Gbps effective data rate. This means the AMD card can hold larger datasets in local memory, which is critical for large-scale rendering, simulation, or AI workloads that exceed 16 GB.

The pixel and texture rates reflect the clock differences. The AMD card achieves 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part manages 144.0 GPixel/s and 276.0 GTexel/s. The AMD card is 54.8% faster in pixel throughput and more than double the texture throughput. The FP32 performance is nearly identical: 17.83 TFLOPS for AMD versus 17.66 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The FP16 performance, however, diverges sharply. The AMD card reaches 35.67 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, while the NVIDIA card stays at 17.66 TFLOPS with a 1:1 rate.

The power delivery differs as well. The AMD card has a 250 W TDP with a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup and a suggested power supply of 600 W. The NVIDIA mobile part has a 140 W TDP, no power connectors (it draws power through the mobile platform), and no suggested power supply listed. The AMD card is a dual-slot desktop card with dimensions of 267 mm in length, 120 mm in height, and 50 mm in width. The NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions, as it is designed for integration into laptops and portable devices.

Both cards support PCIe 4.0 x16 and share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs differ, with the AMD card offering 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the NVIDIA card's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has an average benchmark score of 135,396, compared to 91,134 for the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile. This places the AMD card in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits in the 93rd percentile.

Q: How does the memory capacity differ between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus and offer 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The AMD card delivers 35.67 TFLOPS of FP16 performance using a 2:1 ratio, whereas the NVIDIA card delivers 17.66 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The AMD card offers twice the FP16 throughput.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any compute features that the AMD card lacks?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile includes 184 tensor cores, which are designed for AI and machine learning workloads. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has no tensor cores listed in its specifications.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 boosts to 2322 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile boosts to 1500 MHz. The AMD card's boost clock is 54.8% higher.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD card has a 250 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 600 W. The NVIDIA card has a 140 W TDP and uses no power connectors, drawing power from the mobile platform.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion for most use cases. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins OpenCL by 15.7% and Vulkan by 42.9%, and its average benchmark score is roughly 48.5% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile. For any workstation task that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan, the AMD card is unequivocally the better choice.

The AMD card's 32 GB memory capacity doubles the NVIDIA part's 16 GB, making it more suitable for large datasets in rendering, simulation, or data science. Its higher pixel and texture rates also favor graphics-heavy workloads. The FP32 performance is nearly identical, but the AMD card's FP16 capability at 2:1 ratio gives it an edge in workloads that can use reduced precision.

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, however, is not without its own merits. Its 140 W TDP is significantly lower than the AMD card's 250 W, making it viable for mobile workstations where power and thermal budgets are tight. The 184 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for AI and deep learning tasks that the AMD card cannot match, assuming the software stack leverages them properly. The NVIDIA card also has more shading units, which could benefit certain workloads that are not bottlenecked by clock speed.

For users who need maximum raw compute and memory capacity in a desktop workstation, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the clear winner based on recorded data. For users who require a mobile solution with lower power draw and tensor core support for AI workloads, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile has structural advantages, even though it loses the two recorded benchmark tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 | NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 26,800 million | 17,400 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 392 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.5M / mm² | 44.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1575 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2322 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 16 GB |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 5888 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 240 | 184 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | 46 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 184 |

| Pixel Rate | 222.9 GPixel/s | 144.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 557.3 GTexel/s | 276.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 17.83 TFLOPS | 17.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.66 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 140 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not listed |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2022-03-21 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Turing-M |

| Successor | Not listed | Ada-MW |

| Launch MSRP | 2,249 USD | Not listed |

The remaining specifications, including memory type (GDDR6), memory bus width (256 bit), memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s), memory clock (2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), are identical between the two cards.