AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA A2 Comparison

NVIDIA A2 and AMD Radeon RX 480 are both end-of-life products, but they target completely different workloads. The A2 is a low-power Ampere-based workstation accelerator with no display outputs, while the RX 480 is a classic dual-slot consumer GPU from 2016. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the RX 480 dominates in raw compute tests, but the A2 brings modern features and efficiency that the older card lacks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two shared benchmark results, and AMD wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 scores 37,998 against the A2’s 35,357, a delta of -7% from the A2’s perspective. That is a modest but consistent lead for AMD in general-purpose compute. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 480 hits 45,968 versus the A2’s 34,023 — a 26% advantage. This is a substantial margin, indicating the RX 480’s older GCN architecture still handles Vulkan workloads far better than the A2’s Ampere design in this specific test.

Looking at broader averages, the two cards are closer than the head-to-head suggests. The A2’s average benchmark score is 34,690, while the RX 480 sits at 33,997 — a difference of roughly 2%. Both cards occupy nearly the same percentile ranking among all GPUs: the A2 is at the 79th percentile, the RX 480 at the 78th. In other words, despite the RX 480 winning both direct comparisons, the A2 edges ahead in overall average performance across all tested workloads. The A2’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB (0.4% faster), AMD Radeon HD 7970 (0.4% faster), NVIDIA TITAN V (1% faster), and NVIDIA RTX A1000 (1.4% faster). The RX 480’s rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is 0.5% faster, the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT is 0.4% faster, and the AMD Radeon HD 7950 is 0.1% slower.

What does this mean practically? The RX 480’s Vulkan lead is the single biggest differentiator in the shared tests. If your workload is Vulkan-heavy, the RX 480 is clearly the better choice — 26% is not a rounding error. On the OpenCL side, the RX 480’s 7% advantage is meaningful but not overwhelming. However, the A2’s higher average score suggests it performs better in other benchmarks not shared between the two, likely due to its newer architecture and features.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 averages 34,690 across all benchmark results, while the AMD Radeon RX 480 averages 33,997. That puts the A2 about 2% ahead overall, despite losing both head-to-head tests.

Q: How big is the RX 480’s win in Vulkan?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 480 scores 45,968 versus the A2’s 34,023. That is a 26% advantage for AMD, which is the largest margin in any shared benchmark.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The NVIDIA A2 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the AMD Radeon RX 480 only supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The A2 also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the RX 480 tops out at Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The A2 has a 60 W TDP and requires only a 250 W power supply, with no power connectors needed. The RX 480 has a 150 W TDP, needs a 450 W power supply, and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 480 has 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the A2 offers 200.1 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. Despite the A2’s newer GDDR6 memory, the RX 480’s wider bus gives it 28% more bandwidth.

Q: Is the A2 usable as a display adapter?

A: No. The A2 has no display outputs at all, making it strictly an accelerator for compute tasks. The RX 480 includes 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is massive, reflecting a five-year generation leap. The A2 uses the GA107 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. That works out to 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process, with 5,700 million transistors on a larger 232 mm² die — a density of only 24.6M / mm². The A2’s process advantage is clear: nearly double the transistor density on a smaller die.

The A2 is built on Ampere architecture, which brings dedicated ray tracing cores (10 of them) and tensor cores (40 of them). The RX 480, based on GCN 4.0, has neither. This is a fundamental feature difference: the A2 can accelerate ray-traced workloads and AI/ML inference via tensor cores, while the RX 480 is purely a traditional rasterization and compute part. The A2 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading that the RX 480’s DirectX 12 (12_0) cannot handle.

Clock speeds tell another story. The A2 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost, with memory at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The RX 480 is slower per clock at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost, with memory at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). Yet the RX 480 compensates with raw hardware: 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the A2’s 1280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This explains the RX 480’s higher FP32 throughput of 5.834 TFLOPS versus the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS. The A2’s texture rate is far lower at 70.80 GTexel/s, while the RX 480 manages 182.3 GTexel/s. However, the A2 has a higher pixel rate at 56.64 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s on the RX 480.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 480’s bandwidth advantage (256.0 GB/s vs 200.1 GB/s) matters for memory-heavy workloads, but the A2’s double capacity is clearly aimed at large datasets in AI or scientific computing. The A2 also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, whereas the RX 480 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 — the newer standard offers more bandwidth per lane, though the RX 480 has more lanes.

The Verdict

If your workload is Vulkan-based rendering or general compute, the data points squarely at the RX 480. Its 26% Vulkan lead and 7% OpenCL advantage are unambiguous. The RX 480 also offers display outputs, making it usable in a standard desktop. For anyone building a budget workstation with traditional rasterization tasks, the RX 480 is the practical pick — it launched at 229 USD MSRP and remains competitive in raw throughput.

But the A2 is not without reason to exist. Its 16 GB memory capacity doubles the RX 480’s 8 GB, and its tensor cores enable AI/ML acceleration that the RX 480 simply cannot do. The A2’s 60 W TDP versus 150 W means far lower power draw, no external power connector, and a single-slot footprint. For server or edge deployments where power and space are tight, the A2’s efficiency and modern feature set outweigh its lower raw compute scores. The A2 also supports newer APIs (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4) and has a higher average benchmark score overall.

The choice comes down to workload. The RX 480 wins on raw compute per dollar and breadth of software support for older APIs. The A2 wins on memory capacity, AI features, power efficiency, and modern API compatibility. Neither card is a general-purpose winner; they serve different masters.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A2 | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

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

| Process Node | 8 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 40 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 10 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 40 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 4.531 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| Pixel Rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 60 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 wins in every direct benchmark comparison, and that matters for real-world use. Its Vulkan performance is exceptional — 26% ahead of the A2 — making it the obvious choice for Vulkan-based games or compute applications. The RX 480 also has higher FP32 throughput (5.834 TFLOPS) and vastly superior texture rate (182.3 GTexel/s), which benefits traditional graphics workloads. With 2304 shading units and a 256-bit memory bus, the RX 480 is built for parallel rasterization. Add display outputs and you have a complete GPU that can power a monitor and run demanding applications simultaneously.

The A2 wins on capacity and features. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory is double the RX 480’s 8 GB, which is critical for large machine learning models or datasets that exceed 8 GB. The tensor cores unlock accelerated AI inference, and the ray tracing cores provide hardware support for RT workloads — neither of which the RX 480 can do at all. The A2 also consumes only 60 W, enabling passive or low-profile cooling in dense servers, and requires no power connector. Its single-slot design and PCIe 4.0 interface make it easy to drop into compute nodes. The A2’s newer architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, future-proofing it for modern software stacks.

For a gamer or a workstation user with traditional rendering needs, the RX 480 is the clear winner — more compute, more bandwidth, and display outputs. For a data center or AI-focused deployment, the A2’s memory capacity, tensor cores, and efficiency make it the only sensible option. The data does not lie: the RX 480 is faster in shared tests, but the A2 is more capable in ways the benchmarks do not capture.