AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile occupy very different positions in the professional GPU landscape, with the former a current-generation desktop workstation card and the latter an end-of-life mobile part. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows a clear overall performance hierarchy, but the details of their respective wins and architectural trade-offs reveal distinct use-case scenarios. The W7800 secures a decisive victory in both tested workloads, yet the A5500 Mobile’s power envelope and form factor define its role in portable workstations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the direct comparison available, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 outperforms the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile in both Geekbench compute tests. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the W7800 scores 175,422 against the A5500 Mobile’s 103,601, resulting in a 69.3% advantage for AMD. This is a substantial generational leap, reflecting the W7800’s modern RDNA 3.0 architecture and its ability to leverage Vulkan’s low-level access to hardware. The delta is more than double the gap seen in the OpenCL workload, suggesting that AMD’s driver and hardware implementation for Vulkan is particularly well-optimized compared to the older Ampere-based mobile chip.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a closer, but still decisive, win for the W7800. AMD scores 154,366 while NVIDIA manages 124,287, giving the desktop card a 24.2% lead. While this is a significant margin, it is worth remembering OpenCL is a more mature, cross-vendor API, and the smaller relative gap here compared to Vulkan indicates that the A5500 Mobile’s compute cores are not entirely outclassed in raw throughput terms. However, the W7800’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture still carry the day.

Looking at the broader context from the `nearestRivals` data, the average benchmark score for the W7800 is 164,894, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (the desktop version), which averages 165,217, a mere -0.2% difference, effectively a statistical tie. The W7800 also edges out the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation by -0.7% (165,217 vs 166,094) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X by -2.2%. In contrast, the A5500 Mobile’s average score is 113,944, putting it in the 94th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395, a -0.4% difference, showing it is competitive with that older data-center part. The mobile chip also trails the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by -2.7% and the NVIDIA GB10 by -2.9%, while leading the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 by 2.9%. The data confirms that the W7800 sits in a higher performance tier, with an average score roughly 44.7% higher than the mobile part (164,894 vs 113,944).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins in every benchmark category recorded here, taking both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. Its strengths are most pronounced in compute-heavy, cross-platform workloads where its high FP32 throughput and large memory pool come into play. The 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, makes it a formidable option for rendering, simulation, and AI inference tasks that can utilize its full compute capacity. The Vulkan score, in particular, suggests it is well-suited for modern graphics applications that leverage ray tracing and compute shaders, given its 70 ray accelerators.

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile has no benchmark wins in this dataset. However, its existence is justified by its form factor and power profile, not by raw performance. With a TDP of 165 W and no power connectors required (relying on the mobile chassis’s power delivery), it is designed for laptops where thermal and power constraints are paramount. Its 22.27 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is roughly half of the W7800’s, but it delivers that capability in a package that fits into a portable workstation. The A5500 Mobile’s 232 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI workloads like DLSS and certain professional inference tasks, a feature the W7800 lacks entirely. In scenarios where a user must have CUDA acceleration for specific software stacks, the A5500 Mobile holds an ecosystem advantage, even if its raw scores are lower.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, representing two different design philosophies and process generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is built on the Navi 31 chip using the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This allows for a massive 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M / mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip with the older Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This results in 22,000 million transistors on a 496 mm² die, for a much lower density of 44.4M / mm². The newer process node gives AMD a significant efficiency and density advantage, allowing for nearly 2.6 times more transistors while only increasing the die size by about 6.7%.

The compute layouts differ fundamentally. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, alongside 70 RT cores. The A5500 Mobile counters with 7,424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 58 RT cores and 232 tensor cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the W7800 achieves higher raw throughput due to its much higher clock speeds (base 1895 MHz vs 975 MHz, boost 2525 MHz vs 1500 MHz). The A5500 Mobile’s higher shading unit count is a hallmark of NVIDIA’s Ampere design, which relies on wider but slower cores. The AMD card also has a higher pixel rate (323.2 GPixel/s vs 144.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (707.0 GTexel/s vs 348.0 GTexel/s).

Memory architecture also diverges. Both use GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the W7800 has 32 GB at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A5500 Mobile has 16 GB at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), for 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7800’s advantage in capacity and bandwidth is critical for large datasets. The FP16 capabilities also differ: the W7800 achieves 90.50 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, while the A5500 Mobile is limited to 22.27 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain a throughput boost for half-precision work.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification, reflecting their different market positions.

• Process Node: The W7800 uses a 5 nm process, while the A5500 Mobile uses 8 nm.
• Transistors: The W7800 has 57,700 million, versus 22,000 million for the mobile part.
• Die Size: The W7800 is 529 mm², versus 496 mm² for the A5500 Mobile.
• Base Clock: The W7800 runs at 1895 MHz, versus 975 MHz for the A5500 Mobile.
• Boost Clock: The W7800 boosts to 2525 MHz, versus 1500 MHz for the mobile chip.
• Memory Size: The W7800 has 32 GB, versus 16 GB for the A5500 Mobile.
• Memory Clock: The W7800 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: The W7800 offers 576.0 GB/s, versus 512.0 GB/s for the mobile part.
• Shading Units: The W7800 has 4,480, versus 7,424 for the A5500 Mobile.
• TMUs: The W7800 has 280, versus 232 for the mobile part.
• ROPs: The W7800 has 128, versus 96 for the A5500 Mobile.
• RT Cores: The W7800 has 70, versus 58 for the mobile part.
• Tensor Cores: The W7800 has none, while the A5500 Mobile has 232.
• Pixel Rate: The W7800 is 323.2 GPixel/s, versus 144.0 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The W7800 is 707.0 GTexel/s, versus 348.0 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The W7800 is 45.25 TFLOPS, versus 22.27 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The W7800 is 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1), versus 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: The W7800 draws 260 W, versus 165 W for the mobile part.
• Power Connectors: The W7800 requires 2x 8-pin, while the A5500 Mobile uses None (portable device dependent).
• Slot Width: The W7800 is Dual-slot, while the A5500 Mobile has no specified slot width (mobile form factor).
• Display Outputs: The W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the A5500 Mobile is Portable Device Dependent.
• Dimensions: The W7800 is 280 mm long, 110 mm high, and 40 mm wide; the A5500 Mobile has no specified dimensions.
• Production Status: The W7800 is Active, while the A5500 Mobile is End-of-life.
• Release Date: The W7800 launched in 2023-04-12, while the A5500 Mobile launched in 2022-03-21.
• Predecessor: The W7800 succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega, while the A5500 Mobile succeeds the Quadro Turing-M.
• Successor: The W7800 has no successor listed, while the A5500 Mobile’s successor is Ada-MW.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is significantly ahead, with 45.25 TFLOPS compared to the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile’s 22.27 TFLOPS, a lead of over 2x.

Q: What is the performance gap in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The W7800 scores 175,422 versus 103,601 for the A5500 Mobile, giving AMD a 69.3% advantage in that specific benchmark.

Q: Does the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile have any unique hardware feature?

A: Yes, the A5500 Mobile includes 232 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD Radeon PRO W7800’s specification sheet.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The W7800 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the A5500 Mobile has 16 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus, but the W7800’s bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU is more efficient in terms of transistor density?

A: The AMD W7800 has a density of 109.1M / mm² on its 5 nm process, while the NVIDIA A5500 Mobile has 44.4M / mm² on its 8 nm process, making the AMD chip significantly denser.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is listed as Active, while the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is marked as End-of-life.