AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA RTX A6000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A6000 in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The RTX A6000 scores 193,937 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 410.4% higher than the Radeon RX 480's 37,998. This is the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the Radeon RX 480 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The database lists no RT cores for the RX 480, while the RTX A6000 features 84 dedicated RT cores. The RX 480 also lacks tensor cores, which are present in the A6000.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX A6000 ships with 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX A6000 packs 45.1M transistors per mm² on Samsung's 8 nm process. The RX 480, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node, achieves 24.6M transistors per mm².

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A6000 averages 44,075 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 84th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 480 averages 33,997, sitting in the 78th percentile.

Q: What are the DirectX API level differences?

A: The RTX A6000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) only. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the A6000 lists Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 for the RX 480.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A6000 is built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture using the GA102 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The die measures 628 mm² and contains 28,300 million transistors. This is a workstation-class design with a massive compute footprint.

The RX 480 uses AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, produced on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node. Its die is 232 mm² with 5,700 million transistors. The architectural gap between these two generations is substantial, spanning multiple process nodes and design philosophies.

The A6000 includes 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. It also carries 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores, enabling dedicated ray tracing and AI acceleration. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT or tensor core support.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The A6000 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 across a 384-bit interface, reaching 768.0 GB/s. The RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, capped at 256.0 GB/s. This gives the A6000 three times the bandwidth and six times the capacity.

The compute capabilities scale accordingly. The A6000 delivers 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 and equal FP16 throughput. The RX 480 provides 5.834 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: 201.6 GPixel/s and 604.8 GTexel/s for the A6000 versus 40.51 GPixel/s and 182.3 GTexel/s for the RX 480.

Power and interface specs also differ. The A6000 has a 300 W TDP with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested 700 W PSU. The RX 480 draws 150 W with a single 6-pin connector and a 450 W PSU suggestion. The A6000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 while the RX 480 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two shared benchmarks exist in the database for these GPUs, and the RTX A6000 wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A6000 scores 193,937 against the RX 480's 37,998. This represents a 410.4% advantage. The gap reflects not just raw shader count but the entire compute stack: tensor cores, memory bandwidth, and clock architecture working together.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar story. The A6000 records 164,462, while the RX 480 manages 45,968. That is a 257.8% delta. Vulkan's lower-level API exposes hardware differences more directly, and the A6000's Ampere design clearly benefits.

The RX 480 does not win either recorded test. The wins column shows 2 for the A6000 and 0 for the RX 480. Yet the RX 480's results are not without context. Its average benchmark score of 33,997 places it close to the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, a 0.5% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, a 0.4% gap). This suggests the RX 480 sits in a competitive mid-range tier for its era.

The A6000's nearest rivals include the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (44,795, a 1.6% gap) and the RTX 4090 Mobile (43,667, a 0.9% gap). The A6000 leads both slightly, indicating it remains competitive against modern high-end consumer parts despite its workstation focus.

Specification Differences

| Feature | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

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

| Process Node | 8 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1410 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1800 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10752 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 336 | 144 |

| ROPs | 112 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 84 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 201.6 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 604.8 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 38.71 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 38.71 TFLOPS (1:1) | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 150 W |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2020-10-04 | 2016-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 4,649 USD | 229 USD |

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The RTX A6000 outclasses the RX 480 by margins exceeding 250% in every shared test. Its 84th percentile ranking versus the RX 480's 78th percentile confirms the overall standings, though the percentile difference understates the compute gap visible in raw scores.

The A6000 is an end-of-life workstation product with a successor in Workstation Ada. Its launch MSRP was 4,649 USD. The RX 480 is also end-of-life, with Pirate Islands as its predecessor and Polaris as its successor, launching at 229 USD.

For users needing maximum compute throughput, the A6000 is the only choice from this pair. The 410.4% OpenCL lead and 257.8% Vulkan lead are not marginal advantages; they represent different performance classes entirely. The A6000's 48 GB memory and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth also enable workloads the RX 480 cannot attempt.

The RX 480 remains relevant only in contexts where its 150 W power draw and smaller footprint matter. Its nearest rivals include the RX 560 XT (34,133, a 0.4% gap) and the HD 7950 (33,951, a 0.1% gap), showing it still trades blows with older and lower-tier cards. But against the A6000, it is outmatched in every measurable way.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A6000 wins in all recorded benchmark categories. Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan both favor it by substantial margins. The presence of 84 RT cores and 336 tensor cores suggests additional advantages in ray-traced and AI-accelerated workloads, though no direct benchmark data exists in the shared test set.

The A6000's 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 throughput positions it for scientific computing, rendering, and simulation tasks. Its 768.0 GB/s memory bandwidth supports large dataset processing, while 48 GB capacity allows entire models or scenes to reside on the GPU.

The RX 480 wins in efficiency metrics. Its 150 W TDP is half the A6000's 300 W, and its suggested PSU of 450 W versus 700 W makes it easier to integrate into modest systems. The 240 mm length and 35 mm width also fit smaller chassis compared to the A6000's 267 mm length and dual-slot profile.

For legacy DirectX 9, 10, and 11 workloads, the RX 480's GCN architecture may still find use, though no head-to-head data confirms this. The RX 480's PCIe 3.0 interface and 8 GB memory limit its modern applicability, but its low power draw and compact size make it suitable for secondary systems or basic display tasks.

Users who prioritize raw compute, memory capacity, and modern API support should select the RTX A6000. Users who need minimal power consumption, smaller physical dimensions, or a lower system power requirement may consider the RX 480, accepting its significant performance deficit.