AMD Radeon Pro W6900X vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 and AMD Radeon Pro W6900X are both end-of-life workstation GPUs that sit in the 98th percentile of all GPUs, but the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner. Across the two shared head-to-head tests, the RTX A5500 wins both, with a 32.9% margin in Geekbench OpenCL and a 3% edge in Geekbench Vulkan. The W6900X counters with a larger memory pool and higher clock speeds, yet those specifications do not translate into a single benchmark victory. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—161,075 for the A5500 versus 160,049 for the W6900X—but the head-to-head results favor NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 against the W6900X’s 131,392. That is a 32.9% advantage, a massive gap for two cards that otherwise occupy the same performance percentile. The Vulkan test is closer: the A5500 posts 147,513 while the W6900X reaches 143,199, a 3% difference. These two tests represent the only direct comparisons available, and the A5500 wins both.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the W6900X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 205,557, but no corresponding Metal result exists for the A5500, so that cannot be compared. The average benchmark scores—161,075 for the A5500 and 160,049 for the W6900X—put the A5500 ahead by 0.6% when all available tests are aggregated. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the A5500’s closest rival is the W6900X itself, with a delta of +0.6% from the W6900X’s perspective, while the W6900X’s delta to the A5500 is -0.6%. The W6900X also trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 by 0% and the Radeon Pro W6800X by -0.2%, but those are outside this head-to-head scope.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark results, the RTX A5500 wins in every shared test. It is faster in OpenCL and Vulkan, which are common APIs for general-purpose compute and cross-platform graphics. The W6900X does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it does have specification advantages that could matter in specific workloads. It offers 32 GB of memory versus 24 GB on the A5500, a 33% capacity increase that could benefit large datasets or multi-application workflows. Its boost clock of 2171 MHz is substantially higher than the A5500’s 1665 MHz, and its pixel rate of 277.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 694.7 GTexel/s both exceed the A5500’s 159.8 GPixel/s and 532.8 GTexel/s. The W6900X also delivers 44.46 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, compared to the A5500’s 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), making it stronger for half-precision compute tasks. However, none of these advantages translate into a win in the available OpenCL or Vulkan benchmarks.

The A5500, by contrast, wins on raw FP32 compute: 34.10 TFLOPS versus 22.23 TFLOPS for the W6900X. It also has 10,240 shading units versus 5,120, and it includes 320 tensor cores, which the W6900X lacks entirely. These features likely explain its OpenCL dominance. For users prioritizing Vulkan performance, the A5500’s 3% lead is modest but consistent.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The RTX A5500 uses the GA102 chip on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The W6900X uses the Navi 21 chip on AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die and a higher density of 51.5 million per mm². The smaller, denser process gives AMD an efficiency edge in transistor packing, but NVIDIA’s larger die provides more raw compute resources.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The A5500 uses a 384-bit bus with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory and 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6900X has a narrower 256-bit bus but packs 32 GB of GDDR6, achieving 512.0 GB/s. Both run memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The A5500’s wider bus delivers higher bandwidth, while the W6900X’s larger capacity favors capacity-hungry workloads.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The A5500 has 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the W6900X has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Both have 80 RT cores, but the A5500 adds 320 tensor cores, which are absent on the W6900X. The A5500’s FP32 throughput is 34.10 TFLOPS, while the W6900X achieves 22.23 TFLOPS. For FP16, the W6900X reaches 44.46 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, versus the A5500’s 34.10 TFLOPS at 1:1. The W6900X also has higher pixel and texture rates: 277.9 GPixel/s and 694.7 GTexel/s, compared to 159.8 GPixel/s and 532.8 GTexel/s on the A5500.

Power and physical differences are notable. The A5500 has a 230 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply, while the W6900X draws 300 W and needs a 700 W PSU. The A5500 is dual-slot with a single 8-pin connector; the W6900X lists no slot width or power connectors, reflecting its Apple MPX bus interface. The A5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the W6900X uses Apple MPX and provides one HDMI 2.1 plus four Thunderbolt ports. Physically, both are 267 mm long, but the A5500 is 112 mm tall versus 120 mm for the W6900X. The A5500 was released on 2022-03-21, succeeding the Quadro Turing and preceding the Workstation Ada generation; the W6900X launched on 2021-08-02 with no listed predecessor or successor.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the stronger performer in the shared OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. It wins OpenCL by 32.9% and Vulkan by 3%, and it holds a 0.6% higher average benchmark score. For any workflow that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan—common in compute, rendering, and cross-platform graphics—the A5500 is the clear choice. Its higher FP32 throughput, more shading units, and tensor cores likely drive these results. The W6900X’s advantages in memory capacity (32 GB vs 24 GB) and FP16 performance (44.46 TFLOPS vs 34.10 TFLOPS) are real, but they do not manifest in the available benchmark wins. The W6900X also carries a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD, while the A5500 has no listed MSRP.

Users who need maximum memory for large models or who work primarily in half-precision might find the W6900X appealing, but the benchmark evidence shows it losing to the A5500 in the two tests where they directly compete. The A5500 also has a lower TDP (230 W vs 300 W) and a more conventional PCIe interface, making it easier to integrate into standard workstations. The W6900X’s Apple MPX bus and Thunderbolt outputs indicate a Mac-specific design, which may limit its applicability outside that ecosystem. Given the head-to-head results, the RTX A5500 is the better choice for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, while the W6900X’s strengths lie in memory capacity and FP16 compute, though without a benchmark win to validate them.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins with a score of 174,637 versus 131,392 for the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X, a 32.9% margin.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The RTX A5500 has an average benchmark score of 161,075, while the W6900X scores 160,049, a 0.6% difference in favor of the A5500.

Q: Does the W6900X have more memory than the A5500?

A: Yes, the W6900X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the A5500 has 24 GB. The W6900X also has a narrower 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the A5500’s 384-bit bus and 768.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX A5500 has tensor cores, with 320. The W6900X lists no tensor cores.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the W6900X?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The W6900X has a boost clock of 2171 MHz, while the A5500 boosts to 1665 MHz. However, the A5500 still wins both shared benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A5500 | AMD Radeon Pro W6900X |

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

| Chip | GA102 | Navi 21 |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Generation | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) | Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series) |

| Process node | 8 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 26,800 million |

| Die size | 628 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor density | 45.1M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1080 MHz | 1825 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1665 MHz | 2171 MHz |

| Memory size | 24 GB | 32 GB |

| Bus width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 10240 | 5120 |

| ROPs | 96 | 128 |

| Tensor cores | 320 | null |

| Pixel rate | 159.8 GPixel/s | 277.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 532.8 GTexel/s | 694.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 34.10 TFLOPS | 22.23 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) | 44.46 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 300 W |

| Slot width | Dual-slot | null |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | null |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 700 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt |

| Height | 112 mm | 120 mm |

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

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | null |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | null |

| Launch MSRP | null | 5,999 USD |