AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile occupy different corners of the professional GPU landscape, one a massive desktop card for Apple’s Mac Pro and the other a mobile solution for workstations. The recorded benchmark data reveals a significant performance gap, but the story is more nuanced than a single score. This analysis breaks down the numbers from the database, explores where each GPU excels, and examines the architectural choices that separate them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X scores 124,498, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 105,307. The delta is recorded at 18.2%, meaning the AMD card outperforms the mobile NVIDIA part by nearly a fifth in raw compute throughput. This is a decisive win for the W6800X, and it aligns with the broader performance context.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the gap widens considerably. The Radeon Pro W6800X posts an average benchmark score of 160,671, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RTX A4500 Mobile, by contrast, has an average score of 91,134, sitting in the 93rd percentile. That translates to a 76.3% advantage for the AMD card in overall average performance, a massive chasm that reflects their different roles and power envelopes.

The W6800X’s nearest rivals in the database are all desktop-class professional cards: the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (average score 162,504, only 1.1% higher), the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894, 2.6% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217, 2.8% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, 3.3% higher). This shows the W6800X is competitive with the upper echelon of workstation GPUs, sitting just a few percentage points below each of them. The RTX A4500 Mobile’s rivals tell a different story: its nearest competitor is the desktop NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671, only 0.6% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466, 1.4% higher). Interestingly, the mobile card actually beats two rivals: the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445, which the A4500 Mobile leads by 4.2%) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87,108, leading by 4.6%).

The direct OpenCL head-to-head is the only shared benchmark, and it clearly favors AMD. However, note that the RTX A4500 Mobile also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 76,960 and the W6800X has a Geekbench Metal score of 196,844, but these are not directly comparable across the two cards. The data shows a single victory for the AMD part, with zero recorded wins for the NVIDIA mobile chip.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its average benchmark score of 160,671 is nearly double that of the RTX A4500 Mobile, and its 97th percentile ranking puts it among the top 3% of all GPUs in the database. This makes it the clear choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput, such as large-scale rendering, simulation, or complex data processing. The 18.2% lead in OpenCL over the mobile chip reinforces this, showing that even in a single cross-platform test, the desktop card holds a solid edge.

The RTX A4500 Mobile, despite its lower absolute scores, wins in portability and integration. Its power connectors are listed as "None" and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," which reflects its design as a mobile component. It has a TDP of 140 W compared to the W6800X’s 200 W, making it more power-efficient in terms of raw wattage, though the AMD card still delivers higher performance. The mobile chip also has a higher raw FP32 throughput at 17.66 TFLOPS versus the W6800X’s 16.03 TFLOPS, a curious detail given the AMD card’s overall benchmark lead. This suggests the NVIDIA chip can handle certain floating-point tasks efficiently, but the W6800X’s other advantages, such as its 32 GB memory capacity, likely tip the scales in real-world workloads.

For memory-heavy tasks, the W6800X is the clear winner. It offers 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, exactly double the 16 GB found on the RTX A4500 Mobile. Both have a 256-bit bus and identical bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s, but the capacity difference is crucial for large datasets that exceed 16 GB. The AMD card also has a higher pixel rate (200.4 GPixel/s vs 144.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (500.9 GTexel/s vs 276.0 GTexel/s), making it superior for fill-rate-bound graphics work.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 21 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This process node allows for a transistor count of 26,800 million on a die size of 520 mm², yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile uses the Ampere architecture with the GA104 chip, built on Samsung’s 8 nm node, with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, giving a density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The smaller process node gives AMD a density advantage, though the NVIDIA chip is physically smaller.

Core configurations differ substantially. The W6800X has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, along with 60 ray tracing cores. The RTX A4500 Mobile has more shading units at 5,888, but fewer TMUs at 184, and the same 96 ROPs. It also has 46 ray tracing cores and adds 184 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. This suggests the NVIDIA chip is built for AI and machine learning workloads, while the AMD card focuses on traditional rasterization and ray tracing.

Clock speeds show an interesting inversion. The W6800X runs at a base clock of 1800 MHz and boosts to 2087 MHz, while the RTX A4500 Mobile has a much lower base of 930 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the NVIDIA chip achieves higher FP32 throughput (17.66 TFLOPS vs 16.03 TFLOPS) thanks to its larger shader count. However, the AMD card dominates in FP16 performance: it delivers 32.06 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA chip is limited to 17.66 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This means the W6800X has a 81.5% advantage in half-precision compute, which matters for certain scientific and graphics workloads.

Memory details are similar in bandwidth but differ in capacity, as noted. Both use GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, with memory clocks at 2000 MHz and 16 Gbps effective. The W6800X’s 32 GB capacity is a significant architectural advantage for large-frame-buffer rendering or GPU-accelerated data analysis.

Physical and interface differences are stark. The W6800X is a quad-slot card with an Apple MPX power connector and bus interface, measuring 267 mm in length and 120 mm in height. It requires a suggested 550 W power supply. The RTX A4500 Mobile has no slot width, no power connector, and uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, with no physical dimensions listed. This underscores the desktop-versus-mobile divide. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is equal.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is the far more powerful GPU. Its average benchmark score of 160,671 is 76.3% higher than the RTX A4500 Mobile’s 91,134, and it wins the sole head-to-head OpenCL test by 18.2%. The W6800X also offers double the memory (32 GB vs 16 GB), a higher pixel rate (200.4 vs 144.0 GPixel/s), and a higher texture rate (500.9 vs 276.0 GTexel/s). For any desktop workstation where space and power are not constraints, the W6800X is the clear choice, and its 97th percentile ranking confirms it belongs in the top tier of professional GPUs.

The RTX A4500 Mobile, however, is not without merit. It delivers 17.66 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, slightly ahead of the W6800X, and includes 184 tensor cores that the AMD card lacks entirely. Its lower TDP of 140 W, combined with its mobile form factor, makes it suitable for laptops where portability is essential and the performance gap can be accepted. The data shows it outperforms the Quadro GP100 by 4.2% and the Radeon PRO W7600 by 4.6%, indicating it holds its own among mid-range desktop cards despite being a mobile part.

The choice depends on the use case. If the workload requires maximum compute, large memory capacity, or high-resolution texture work, the W6800X is the only logical pick from this data. If the need is for a mobile workstation with tensor core support for AI tasks, the RTX A4500 Mobile is the only option, and its performance is respectable given its constraints. The two GPUs are not direct competitors; they serve different segments, and the benchmark data reflects that.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has an average benchmark score of 160,671, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91,134, a difference of 76.3% in favor of AMD.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X scores 124,498 versus 105,307 for the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, giving AMD an 18.2% lead.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB, exactly half the capacity.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile have any advantages in compute performance?

A: Yes, the RTX A4500 Mobile has a higher FP32 throughput at 17.66 TFLOPS compared to 16.03 TFLOPS for the W6800X, and it includes 184 tensor cores that the AMD card does not have.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile uses an 8 nm process at Samsung.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is in the 97th percentile, while the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is in the 93rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W6800X | NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | Navi 21 | GA104 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ampere |

| 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 | 1800 MHz | 930 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2087 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 16 GB |

| Shading Units | 3840 | 5888 |

| TMUs | 240 | 184 |

| RT Cores | 60 | 46 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 184 |

| Pixel Rate | 200.4 GPixel/s | 144.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 500.9 GTexel/s | 276.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 16.03 TFLOPS | 17.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 32.06 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.66 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 200 W | 140 W |

| Slot Width | Quad-slot | None |

| Power Connectors | Apple MPX | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | None |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2021-08-02 | 2022-03-21 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,799 USD | None |