AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by over a year of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear split: the NVIDIA part wins the majority of modern API benchmarks, while AMD’s older card dominates legacy DirectX 9 and 2D workloads. The RTX A2000 Mobile secures 6 head-to-head wins against the RX 5500 XT’s 3, yet the AMD card holds a higher average benchmark score of 14692 versus 13821, a paradox explained by the specific tests each excels in. This analysis breaks down exactly where each GPU pulls ahead, what those wins mean for real-world use, and why the architecture dictates the outcome.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victories for the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile come in compute and modern graphics APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA part scores 56518 against AMD’s 46965, a 16.9% advantage that reflects its higher raw compute throughput. The Vulkan gap is nearly identical: 53146 versus 44191, a 16.8% lead for NVIDIA. These are not marginal wins; they represent a substantial performance tier difference in cross-platform compute and modern rendering workloads.

DirectX 11 and 12 benchmarks reinforce the NVIDIA pattern. In Passmark DirectX 11, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 68 versus 56, a 17.6% margin. DirectX 12 shows a 14.9% lead (47 vs 40), and even DirectX 10, an older API, favors NVIDIA by 19.3% (57 vs 46). The consistency across these API levels suggests the Ampere architecture’s execution efficiency is broadly superior, not just in one narrow test. The single most important modern benchmark, Passmark G3D, gives NVIDIA a 5.5% win: 9611 vs 9083. While smaller than the API-specific deltas, this is the aggregate gaming metric, and it still lands in NVIDIA’s favor.

AMD’s counterattacks are concentrated in two areas. The largest single delta in the entire comparison is Passmark G2D, where the RX 5500 XT scores 774 versus 491, a massive 57.6% advantage. This measures 2D graphics and desktop composition performance, where AMD’s architecture clearly excels. The other AMD win is in Passmark GPU Compute, scoring 4446 against NVIDIA’s 4334, a modest 2.6% edge. Finally, AMD wins Passmark DirectX 9 by 15.7% (133 vs 115), a legacy API test where the older RDNA 1.0 design retains an advantage. These wins are real but concentrated in less demanding or outdated workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a curious story. AMD’s average of 14692 is 6.3% higher than NVIDIA’s 13821, despite losing 6 of 9 head-to-head tests. This is because the G2D test, where AMD wins by 57.6%, carries heavy weight in the average calculation. The percentile rankings reflect this split: the RX 5500 XT sits at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A2000 Mobile sits at the 55th. The data implies that for pure gaming and modern compute, NVIDIA is the pick, but for overall benchmark breadth, AMD’s 2D dominance inflates its standing.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 Mobile wins in every scenario involving modern graphics APIs, compute workloads, and DirectX 10 through 12 gaming. The 16.9% OpenCL lead and 16.8% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated productivity, rendering, and any workload that leverages compute shaders. The DirectX 11 and 12 wins (17.6% and 14.9% respectively) indicate that contemporary game engines will run noticeably faster on the NVIDIA part. The Passmark G3D victory, while smaller at 5.5%, confirms this trend for overall 3D performance. If the workload involves DirectX 10, 11, or 12, or general-purpose compute via OpenCL or Vulkan, the data strongly favors NVIDIA.

The RX 5500 XT wins are more specialized. The 57.6% G2D advantage suggests superior 2D desktop performance, which could benefit applications with heavy window management, image editing in 2D mode, or legacy GUI rendering. The 15.7% DirectX 9 win indicates that older games or software relying on DX9 will run better on AMD. The 2.6% GPU Compute win is narrow but shows AMD is not entirely outclassed in compute. For users running legacy applications, prioritizing 2D interface responsiveness, or playing older DX9 titles, the RX 5500 XT holds a measurable edge. The data does not support AMD for modern gaming, but for retro or 2D-centric use, it is the stronger part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark and explains the benchmark split. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, while the RTX A2000 Mobile uses the GA107 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process. AMD’s chip contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while NVIDIA’s packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. This gives NVIDIA a 35.9% transistor count advantage and a higher transistor density of 43.5M per mm² versus AMD’s 40.5M per mm².

The execution resources tell a similar story. The RTX A2000 Mobile has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, compared to the RX 5500 XT’s 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA has 81.8% more shading units and 50% more ROPs, though AMD has 10% more TMUs. Critically, NVIDIA adds 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the AMD part. This explains the RTX A2000 Mobile’s DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) API support versus AMD’s DirectX 12 (12_1) — the RT cores enable hardware ray tracing, and the tensor cores accelerate AI workloads.

Clock speeds and memory bandwidth favor AMD in raw throughput. The RX 5500 XT boosts to 1845 MHz versus NVIDIA’s 1687 MHz, a 9.4% advantage. AMD’s memory runs at 14 Gbps effective versus NVIDIA’s 12 Gbps, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth against 192.0 GB/s, a 16.7% lead for AMD. Yet NVIDIA’s FP32 compute is 8.637 TFLOPS versus AMD’s 5.196 TFLOPS, a 66.2% advantage. This is because NVIDIA’s 2560 shading units overwhelm AMD’s clock speed advantage. The FP16 picture is different: AMD hits 10.39 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, while NVIDIA delivers 8.637 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning AMD has a 20.3% FP16 lead only if software can exploit the packed math.

Power and physical design differ fundamentally. The RX 5500 XT is a 130 W dual-slot card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 300 W power supply. The RTX A2000 Mobile is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) drawing 95 W with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. This is not a desktop replacement; it is a mobile-only part. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving NVIDIA twice the bandwidth to the host system.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile delivers 8.637 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT’s 5.196 TFLOPS, a 66.2% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD card win any modern benchmarks?

A: No. AMD wins Passmark G2D, Passmark DirectX 9, and Passmark GPU Compute. Its only modern API win is GPU Compute, with a narrow 2.6% margin over NVIDIA.

Q: Why does the AMD card have a higher average benchmark score despite losing more tests?

A: The AMD card averages 14692 versus NVIDIA’s 13821. This is driven by AMD’s 57.6% win in Passmark G2D, which inflates its average despite losing 6 of 9 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 Mobile support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes. It has 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT has no RT or tensor cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU is more suitable for a laptop?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile is an IGP with 95 W TDP and no power connectors, making it designed for portable devices. The RX 5500 XT is a 130 W dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin connector, typical of a desktop or larger chassis.

Q: How much faster is NVIDIA in DirectX 11 gaming?

A: The RTX A2000 Mobile scores 68 versus 56 in Passmark DirectX 11, a 17.6% lead for NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT | NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1607 MHz | 1215 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1845 MHz | 1687 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1717 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 88 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 20 |

| Tensor Cores | N/A | 80 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.04 GPixel/s | 80.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 162.4 GTexel/s | 135.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.196 TFLOPS | 8.637 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) | 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 95 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | N/A |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2019-12-11 | 2021-04-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 169 USD | N/A |

The Verdict

The data directs a clear split. For modern gaming and compute workloads, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile is the superior part, winning DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests by margins from 14.9% to 19.3%, plus OpenCL and Vulkan by nearly 17%. Its 66.2% higher FP32 throughput and dedicated RT and tensor cores make it the architecturally advanced choice, despite lower clocks and memory bandwidth. The 5.5% lead in Passmark G3D confirms this for overall 3D performance.

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT is the pick for specific legacy and 2D scenarios. Its 57.6% G2D win is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and its 15.7% DirectX 9 advantage shows it handles older APIs better. The 2.6% GPU Compute win adds a small modern feather to its cap. However, these wins do not compensate for the NVIDIA part’s dominance in every contemporary API. The RX 5500 XT’s higher average score (14692 vs 13821) is a statistical artifact of the G2D test’s weighting, not an indication of overall superiority.

Users should choose the RTX A2000 Mobile for any serious gaming, rendering, or compute task involving DirectX 10-12, OpenCL, or Vulkan. The RX 5500 XT is only the sensible choice for systems prioritizing 2D desktop responsiveness, running legacy DX9 software, or where the 130 W dual-slot form factor is acceptable. For portable use, the RTX A2000 Mobile’s 95 W IGP design with no power connectors is the only viable option of the two. The benchmark data is unambiguous: NVIDIA wins the modern war, AMD wins the legacy skirmish.