AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile

The data splits this comparison down the middle: the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 takes the Vulkan benchmark decisively, while the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile edges ahead in OpenCL. The W6800 lands in the 96th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 135,396, whereas the RTX A5500 Mobile sits at the 94th percentile with 113,944. For raw compute throughput, the RTX A5500 Mobile leads in FP32 at 22.27 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS for the W6800, but the W6800 counters with 32 GB of memory, double the mobile part's 16 GB, and a 250 W desktop power envelope versus 165 W. Users needing maximum memory capacity and Vulkan performance should pick the W6800; those prioritizing OpenCL workloads and higher raw FP32 output should choose the RTX A5500 Mobile.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the pick for professionals who need massive memory capacity and favor Vulkan-based rendering pipelines. Its 32 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is double the RTX A5500 Mobile's 16 GB, and it wins the head-to-head Vulkan test with a 6.1% margin. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, meanwhile, is the choice for OpenCL-centric workflows and applications that scale with raw FP32 compute, as it posts a 2% OpenCL win and delivers 22.27 TFLOPS FP32 versus 17.83 TFLOPS. The W6800's average benchmark score of 135,396 places it 18.8% above the RTX A5500 Mobile's 113,944, a gap driven largely by the Metal benchmark where the W6800 scores 174,420—a test the NVIDIA part does not have a recorded score for. Neither card is a universal winner; the data shows a 1-1 split in head-to-head tests, so the correct choice hinges entirely on workload type.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational and process-driven. The W6800 uses TSMC's 7 nm process with a 520 mm² die containing 26,800 million transistors, achieving a density of 51.5M transistors per mm². The RTX A5500 Mobile uses Samsung's 8 nm process with a 496 mm² die and 22,000 million transistors, resulting in 44.4M transistors per mm². The W6800's RDNA 2.0 architecture is built around 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 60 ray tracing cores. The RTX A5500 Mobile's Ampere architecture packs 7424 shading units—nearly double—but only 232 TMUs and 96 ROPs, with 58 ray tracing cores and 232 tensor cores. The shading unit advantage explains the FP32 throughput lead for NVIDIA: 22.27 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS. However, the W6800 counters with FP16 performance of 35.67 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX A5500 Mobile's FP16 is capped at 22.27 TFLOPS at 1:1. The W6800 also has higher pixel and texture rates: 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s and 348.0 GTexel/s. Clock speeds diverge sharply—the W6800 boosts to 2322 MHz from a 1575 MHz base, while the RTX A5500 Mobile boosts to only 1500 MHz from a 975 MHz base. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the W6800 is a dual-slot desktop card with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX A5500 Mobile's display outputs are portable-device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs face off in exactly two recorded tests, and each wins one. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 Mobile scores 124,287 against the W6800's 121,808, a 2% advantage for NVIDIA. This aligns with the FP32 compute delta, where the RTX A5500 Mobile's 22.27 TFLOPS outpaces the W6800's 17.83 TFLOPS by roughly 25%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6800 reverses the result, scoring 109,961 versus 103,601 for the RTX A5500 Mobile, a 6.1% margin for AMD. The Vulkan win is notable because the W6800's lower FP32 throughput still translates into better driver-level or architecture-level efficiency for that API. Beyond the head-to-head, the W6800 has a Geekbench Metal score of 174,420, which is its strongest benchmark and likely a major contributor to its 135,396 average. The RTX A5500 Mobile has no Metal result, meaning its 113,944 average is computed from OpenCL and Vulkan only. The W6800's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0.1% behind), the RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (0.3% ahead). The RTX A5500 Mobile's rivals include the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (0.4% ahead) and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 (2.7% ahead), placing it in a lower performance tier overall.

Specification Differences

The most consequential spec split is memory capacity: 32 GB on the W6800 versus 16 GB on the RTX A5500 Mobile. Both use GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and identical 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, so the difference is purely capacity, not speed. Clock behavior diverges significantly, with the W6800 running a 1575 MHz base and 2322 MHz boost versus 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost for the mobile part. The RTX A5500 Mobile compensates with 7424 shading units to the W6800's 3840, but the W6800 has more TMUs (240 vs 232) and equal ROPs (96). Ray tracing cores are nearly equal (60 vs 58), but the RTX A5500 Mobile adds 232 tensor cores, which the W6800 lacks entirely. Power draws differ by 85 W: 250 W for the W6800 versus 165 W for the RTX A5500 Mobile. The W6800 requires a 600 W suggested PSU and uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, while the RTX A5500 Mobile has no power connectors specified. Physically, the W6800 measures 267 mm in length, 120 mm in height, and 50 mm in width with dual-slot width; the RTX A5500 Mobile has no listed dimensions. The W6800 launched on 2021-06-07 with a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD, while the RTX A5500 Mobile launched on 2022-03-21 with no MSRP listed. Both are end-of-life, with the W6800 succeeding the Radeon Pro Vega and the RTX A5500 Mobile succeeding Quadro Turing-M and preceding Ada-MW.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6, exactly double the RTX A5500 Mobile's 16 GB. Both share the same 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in compute performance?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile leads in FP32 with 22.27 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS for the W6800. However, the W6800 leads in FP16 with 35.67 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio, while the RTX A5500 Mobile achieves 22.27 TFLOPS at 1:1.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 109,961 versus 103,601 for the RTX A5500 Mobile, a 6.1% advantage.

Q: Does the RTX A5500 Mobile have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the RTX A5500 Mobile includes 232 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the AMD Radeon PRO W6800.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W6800 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. The RTX A5500 Mobile has a 165 W TDP with no power connectors listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The W6800 averages 135,396 across its benchmarks, placing it in the 96th percentile, while the RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113,944, placing it in the 94th percentile. The W6800's average is about 18.8% higher.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins decisively in scenarios demanding large memory capacity. Its 32 GB frame buffer handles datasets that would exceed the RTX A5500 Mobile's 16 GB, making it the choice for 8K texture workloads, large simulation meshes, or multi-application GPU compute. It also wins the Vulkan head-to-head by 6.1%, so any pipeline built on Vulkan—common in CAD, visualization, and game engine rendering—will favor AMD. The W6800's higher pixel rate (222.9 GPixel/s vs 144.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (557.3 GTexel/s vs 348.0 GTexel/s) further support rasterization-heavy tasks. Its desktop form factor with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also makes it superior for multi-monitor setups, whereas the RTX A5500 Mobile's outputs are portable-device dependent.

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile wins in OpenCL workloads, posting a 2% head-to-head advantage (124,287 vs 121,808). Its 22.27 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, driven by 7424 shading units, gives it a raw compute edge for scientific computing, AI inference (aided by 232 tensor cores), and any FP32-heavy simulation. The 165 W TDP makes it more power-efficient per watt in raw FP32 terms, though the W6800's higher clocks partially offset this. The RTX A5500 Mobile's 1:1 FP16 ratio (22.27 TFLOPS) means it doesn't gain a factor-of-two boost in half-precision, but it maintains consistent throughput across precision types. For mobile or compact workstation deployments, the RTX A5500 Mobile's lack of power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs are advantages, though the W6800's dual-slot desktop design offers more consistent thermal and power delivery. In summary, the W6800 wins on memory capacity, Vulkan, and display connectivity; the RTX A5500 Mobile wins on OpenCL, FP32 compute, and tensor-accelerated tasks.