AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 represent two distinct approaches to professional workstation graphics, and the benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows a clear performance hierarchy. While both cards target similar workloads, their architectural philosophies and resulting scores diverge significantly. The A5500 leads in both shared compute benchmarks, while the W6800 counters with a larger memory pool and a higher peak clock speed, though its aggregate benchmark score trails.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins both available benchmark comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A5500 scores 174,637 against the W6800's 121,808, yielding a decisive 43.4% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a substantial gap that indicates the A5500's compute architecture is far more efficient in this workload. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the A5500 posting 155,797 versus the W6800's 109,961, a 41.7% delta. In both instances, the A5500's wins are commanding, suggesting that for applications leveraging these APIs, the NVIDIA card will deliver noticeably higher throughput.

The average benchmark score further contextualizes this disparity. The A5500 holds an average score of 165,217, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The W6800, by contrast, averages 135,396, sitting in the 96th percentile. While both are high-performing cards, the A5500's average is roughly 22% higher. This is reflected in their respective nearest rival lists. The A5500's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, which scores 166,094, a mere 0.5% higher. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is also near, at 164,894, just 0.2% behind the A5500. The W6800, however, is bracketed by the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (0.1% behind). The data shows the A5500 competes in a higher performance tier, while the W6800 sits firmly in a mid-range bracket despite its 32 GB memory allocation.

The W6800's lone benchmark win is in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 174,420. This test is not in the head-to-head comparison, but it is notable. The A5500 has no Metal score listed, so a direct comparison is impossible. However, this Metal result, which is higher than the A5500's OpenCL score, suggests the W6800 may have strengths in Apple-centric or Metal-specific workflows, though the absence of a matching A5500 figure prevents a definitive conclusion. For OpenCL and Vulkan, the two APIs where both cards were tested, the A5500's dominance is absolute.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the clear choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan applications. Its 43.4% lead in OpenCL and 41.7% lead in Vulkan are overwhelming, and its 97th percentile ranking versus the W6800's 96th percentile confirms its higher standing. The A5500's average score of 165,217 is also closer to the performance of the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094) and the Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894), indicating it is in a different performance class. Professionals running scientific simulations, rendering tasks, or AI-adjacent workloads that rely on these APIs will see substantial benefits from the A5500.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800, however, is not without merit. Its 32 GB of GDDR6 memory is a full 8 GB more than the A5500's 24 GB. For workloads that are memory-capacity-bound — such as massive dataset processing, large language model inference, or high-resolution texture-heavy rendering — this extra capacity could be the deciding factor. The W6800 also has a higher boost clock at 2322 MHz versus the A5500's 1665 MHz, which may benefit lightly-threaded or latency-sensitive tasks. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs also offer more display connectivity options than the A5500's 4x DisplayPort. The verdict is situational: choose the A5500 for raw speed and compute throughput; choose the W6800 when memory capacity and display flexibility are paramount. The W6800's launch MSRP is 2,249 USD, a figure that can be stated once as historical context.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process by Samsung. It contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 employs the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 21 chip, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It packs 26,800 million transistors into a smaller 520 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 51.5M per mm². This indicates AMD's process advantage in terms of packing more transistors per area, though the A5500 has more total transistors overall.

The compute core layouts differ drastically. The A5500 features 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, the latter being absent from the W6800 entirely. The W6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 60 RT cores and no tensor cores. The shading unit count is a 2.67x difference in favor of NVIDIA, which directly explains the A5500's FP32 throughput advantage. The A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W6800 achieves 17.83 TFLOPS. This nearly 2x difference in raw compute is the primary driver of the benchmark results.

Memory architecture also diverges. The A5500 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 24 GB of GDDR6, yielding 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6800 uses a narrower 256-bit bus with 32 GB of GDDR6, but its bandwidth drops to 512.0 GB/s. Both have the same effective memory speed of 16 Gbps. The A5500's wider bus provides 50% more bandwidth, which is critical for data-intensive tasks. The W6800 compensates with 33% more capacity, but the bandwidth deficit is a significant architectural trade-off. The pixel rates also reflect this: the W6800 has a higher pixel rate at 222.9 GPixel/s versus the A5500's 159.8 GPixel/s, but the A5500's texture rate is lower at 532.8 GTexel/s versus the W6800's 557.3 GTexel/s, a narrow 4.6% difference.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show clear divergences in several key fields. The process node differs: 8 nm (Samsung) for the A5500 versus 7 nm (TSMC) for the W6800. The die size is 628 mm² for the A5500 versus 520 mm² for the W6800. Transistor counts are 28,300 million versus 26,800 million, and density is 45.1M/mm² versus 51.5M/mm². Clock speeds are notably different: the A5500 has a base of 1080 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, while the W6800 has a higher base of 1575 MHz and a boost of 2322 MHz. The W6800's boost clock is 39.5% higher.

Memory capacity and bandwidth differ: 24 GB at 768.0 GB/s for the A5500 versus 32 GB at 512.0 GB/s for the W6800. The bus width is 384-bit versus 256-bit. Shading units are 10,240 versus 3,840, TMUs are 320 versus 240, and ROPs are identical at 96. RT cores are 80 versus 60, and tensor cores are 320 versus none. The FP32 output is 34.10 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS, while FP16 is 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1). The W6800 has a slight FP16 advantage due to its 2:1 ratio, but the A5500's 1:1 ratio means it does not lose performance when switching to FP16.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The A5500 has a TDP of 230 W with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The W6800 has a TDP of 250 W, requiring a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 600 W. Both are dual-slot cards with a length of 267 mm. The A5500 is 112 mm high, while the W6800 is slightly taller at 120 mm and has a width of 50 mm, whereas the A5500's width is not listed. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the A5500 and 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the W6800. The A5500's release date is March 2022, while the W6800 launched earlier in June 2021. The A5500's production status is end-of-life, with its predecessor being Quadro Turing and successor Workstation Ada; the W6800 is also end-of-life, succeeding Radeon Pro Vega.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 has an average benchmark score of 165,217, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6800's 135,396. The A5500 also holds a 97th percentile ranking versus the W6800's 96th.

Q: How much faster is the A5500 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The A5500 scores 174,637 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 43.4% higher than the W6800's 121,808. This represents a substantial performance lead for NVIDIA in this compute API.

Q: Does the W6800 have any memory advantage?

A: Yes, the W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory compared to the A5500's 24 GB. However, the A5500 has higher memory bandwidth at 768.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s due to its 384-bit bus versus the W6800's 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the W6800 delivers 17.83 TFLOPS. This is a 91% advantage for the A5500 in raw single-precision floating-point throughput.

Q: Which card has more RT cores and tensor cores?

A: The A5500 has 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The W6800 has 60 RT cores but no tensor cores. The presence of tensor cores in the A5500 is a key differentiator for AI-related workloads.

Q: Are their power requirements different?

A: Yes, the A5500 has a TDP of 230 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector with a suggested 550 W PSU. The W6800 has a TDP of 250 W and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, with a suggested 600 W PSU.