AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB and the AMD Radeon RX 480 occupy nearly identical positions in the aggregate benchmark standings, yet their performance profiles diverge sharply in modern workloads. The RTX A2000 leads the RX 480 by a mere 0.5% in average benchmark score (34,154 vs. 33,997), a margin that places both cards within the same performance tier. However, the data from direct comparisons tells a different story: the RTX A2000 wins both head-to-head tests, with a 35.5% advantage in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test (1,309 vs. 966) and a commanding 76.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (66,998 vs. 37,998). These results indicate that while the overall average scores are close, the RTX A2000 delivers substantially higher performance in the specific workloads tested, particularly those that leverage modern API features.

The RTX A2000's 35.5% victory in 3DMark Steel Nomad highlights a generational gap in DirectX 12 implementation. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 480 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). This feature-level difference translates directly into measurable performance, as the Steel Nomad test is designed to stress contemporary rendering paths. The 76.3% margin in Geekbench OpenCL further underscores the A2000's compute advantage, driven by its 3,328 shading units compared to the RX 480's 2,304. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental architectural leap that the aggregate scores obscure.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmarks shared between these cards reveal a consistent pattern of NVIDIA superiority. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RTX A2000 scores 1,309 against the RX 480's 966, a delta of 35.5%. This is a substantial margin that places the A2000 in a higher performance class for DX12 gaming workloads. The RX 480's older GCN 4.0 architecture, with its DirectX 12 (12_0) feature set, cannot match the Ampere-based A2000's 12_2 capabilities, which include hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders among other modern features.

The Geekbench OpenCL result is even more decisive. The RTX A2000 posts 66,998 points, which is 76.3% higher than the RX 480's 37,998. This near-doubling of compute performance reflects the A2000's superior raw throughput: 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.834 TFLOPS for the RX 480. The A2000 also benefits from 26 dedicated ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, neither of which exist on the RX 480. While OpenCL is not a gaming benchmark, it is a strong indicator of general-purpose compute capability, which matters for workstation tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing.

The RX 480 does not win either head-to-head test. Its only comparable metric is the Geekbench Vulkan score of 45,968, but no equivalent Vulkan result exists for the A2000 in the data, so a direct comparison is not possible. In the tests where both cards were measured, the A2000 wins 2-0, with an average delta of approximately 55.9% across the two tests. This is a decisive victory that contradicts the near-identical aggregate scores, suggesting that the average benchmark score is heavily influenced by older or less demanding workloads where the RX 480's higher clock speeds (1,266 MHz boost vs. 1,200 MHz) can partially compensate for its architectural disadvantages.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 wins decisively in modern, API-accelerated workloads. Its 35.5% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 demonstrates clear superiority in DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, where features like variable rate shading and ray tracing are available. The 76.3% margin in OpenCL indicates a substantial advantage in compute-heavy applications such as video encoding, scientific simulation, and machine learning inference. For professional users running CAD, 3D modeling, or data visualization software that leverages OpenCL or DX12, the A2000 is the unequivocal choice.

The RX 480's strengths are more contextual and less evident in the available data. It matches the A2000's aggregate score within 0.5%, which implies that in legacy DirectX 11 or OpenGL workloads (both cards support OpenGL 4.6), the performance gap narrows or reverses. The RX 480's higher base clock (1,120 MHz vs. 562 MHz) and boost clock (1,266 MHz vs. 1,200 MHz) suggest it can outperform the A2000 in lightly threaded or older applications that do not utilize modern features. Its 144 texture mapping units versus the A2000's 104 also give it a theoretical texture fill rate advantage (182.3 GTexel/s vs. 124.8 GTexel/s), which could benefit certain texture-bound scenarios.

However, the RX 480's wins are not represented in the head-to-head data. The card shows a 3,997-point lead over the Radeon HD 7950 (0.1% delta) and a 148-point lead over the RX 7700S (0.4% delta) in its nearest rivals list, but these are not direct comparisons to the A2000. For gaming at 1080p in older titles, the RX 480's 8 GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus may provide sufficient bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) to match the A2000, but the A2000's 12 GB GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth offers more capacity and higher bandwidth for modern textures and higher resolutions. The data strongly favors the A2000 across every measurable shared benchmark.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX A2000 in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 1,309 compared to the RX 480's 966, a 35.5% advantage. This is the most significant gaming-related benchmark difference between the two cards.

Q: What is the aggregate benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX A2000 has an average benchmark score of 34,154, while the RX 480 has 33,997. The A2000 leads by 157 points, or 0.5%, placing both cards within 0.6% of each other's nearest rivals.

Q: Does the RX 480 win any shared benchmark against the A2000?

A: No. In the two shared tests (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and Geekbench OpenCL), the A2000 wins both. The RX 480's only additional benchmark result is Geekbench Vulkan (45,968), for which no A2000 score is available.

Q: How do the OpenCL scores compare between the two cards?

A: The RTX A2000 scores 66,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 76.3% higher than the RX 480's 37,998. This is the largest performance gap in any shared test.

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

A: The RTX A2000 ranks in the 79th percentile, while the RX 480 ranks in the 78th percentile. This one-percentile difference reflects their near-identical aggregate scores.

Q: Are the two cards considered rivals based on benchmark data?

A: Yes. Each card lists the other as a nearest rival. The A2000 shows a 0.5% delta over the RX 480, while the RX 480 shows a -0.5% delta against the A2000, confirming they are direct competitors in aggregate performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The RTX A2000 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s. The A2000 has more shading units (3,328 vs. 2,304) and more ROPs (48 vs. 32), but fewer TMUs (104 vs. 144). The A2000's base clock is significantly lower at 562 MHz versus 1,120 MHz, though boost clocks are closer at 1,200 MHz versus 1,266 MHz.

Memory speed also differs: the A2000 runs at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the RX 480 runs at 2,000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The A2000 has a lower TDP of 70 W versus 150 W, and requires no power connectors, while the RX 480 needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the A2000 and 450 W for the RX 480. The A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX 480 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ as well: the A2000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 480 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Physical dimensions vary significantly. The A2000 is 167 mm (6.6 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high, while the RX 480 is 240 mm (9.4 inches) long, 95 mm (3.7 inches) high, and 35 mm (1.4 inches) wide. Both are dual-slot cards. The A2000 has a launch MSRP of 449 USD, while the RX 480 has a launch MSRP of 229 USD. The A2000 was released on November 22, 2021, while the RX 480 was released on June 28, 2016. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A2000 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture using the GA106 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. It contains 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The RX 480 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, for a density of 24.6 million per mm². The A2000's newer process and higher density enable more than twice the transistor count in a similar die area.

The A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, which are absent from the RX 480. This enables hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based features like DLSS, neither of which the RX 480 supports. The A2000 also has a higher FP32 throughput at 7.987 TFLOPS versus 5.834 TFLOPS for the RX 480, and both cards offer 1:1 FP16 performance. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The A2000's pixel rate is 57.60 GPixel/s, higher than the RX 480's 40.51 GPixel/s, but the RX 480's texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s exceeds the A2000's 124.8 GTexel/s. The A2000 belongs to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation, succeeding Quadro Turing, while the RX 480 belongs to the Arctic Islands (RX 400) generation, succeeding Pirate Islands. The A2000's successor is Workstation Ada, while the RX 480's successor is Polaris. These architectural differences explain the A2000's dominance in modern workloads despite the near-identical aggregate scores.