AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at thin laptops, but the benchmark data shows they occupy entirely different performance tiers. Across nine head-to-head benchmark tests, the RTX A2000 Mobile wins every single one, with margins ranging from 15% to 94.3%. This is not a close contest; it is a systematic defeat for the AMD part, driven by fundamental architectural and specification differences that favor the NVIDIA chip in nearly every measurable workload.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the RTX A2000 Mobile wins all nine head-to-head tests, so the "where each one wins" split is entirely one-sided. The NVIDIA part takes the PassMark G3D test with a score of 9611 against 5848 for the RX 5500M, a 64.3% advantage. In compute-heavy workloads, the gap widens further: the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 4334 in PassMark GPU Compute, which is 87.1% higher than the RX 5500M's 2316. The largest single margin comes in PassMark DirectX 11, where the NVIDIA part scores 68 versus 35, a 94.3% delta.

The AMD part does not have a single winning category, but its closest relative performance appears in legacy DirectX 9, where it scores 100 against the RTX A2000 Mobile's 115 — still a 15% loss but the narrowest gap in the set. Similarly, in PassMark G2D, the RX 5500M's 414 trails the NVIDIA part's 491 by 18.6%, which is the second-smallest margin. This suggests that in older or less demanding 2D and DirectX 9 workloads, the AMD part is relatively less disadvantaged, though still behind. In every modern API test — DirectX 10, 11, 12, Vulkan, and OpenCL — the NVIDIA part leads by at least 45.9%.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The RTX A2000 Mobile uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process, with a chip designated GA107 that contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The RX 5500M uses AMD's RDNA 1.0 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a Navi 14 chip containing 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, for a density of 40.5M per mm².

The NVIDIA part is not just newer (release date 2021-04-11 versus 2019-10-06 for the AMD); it also has a more advanced feature set. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5500M only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The RTX A2000 Mobile includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, while the RX 5500M has none of either. This explains why the NVIDIA part can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the AMD part simply cannot accelerate.

Clock speeds and compute resources tell a mixed story. The RX 5500M has a higher base clock (1375 MHz versus 1215 MHz) and a similar boost clock (1645 MHz versus 1687 MHz for the NVIDIA part). However, the RTX A2000 Mobile has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, compared to the RX 5500M's 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has nearly double the shader count, which drives its FP32 throughput of 8.637 TFLOPS versus 4.632 TFLOPS for the AMD part. Interestingly, the RX 5500M has higher FP16 throughput (9.265 TFLOPS) than FP32 due to a 2:1 ratio, while the RTX A2000 Mobile has equal FP16 and FP32 (both 8.637 TFLOPS). Memory bandwidth also favors the AMD part: 224.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s, despite both having 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, because the RX 5500M runs its memory at 14 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps for the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: if you need maximum performance, the RTX A2000 Mobile is the only choice. It wins every benchmark, with the smallest margin being 15% in DirectX 9 and the largest being 94.3% in DirectX 11. The NVIDIA part also has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 13821 versus 13356 for the AMD part, and it sits at the 55th percentile of all GPUs compared to the 54th for the RX 5500M — a small but consistent advantage in the broader landscape.

However, the RX 5500M is not without merit if you look at the numbers differently. It has a higher boost clock (1645 MHz versus 1687 MHz for NVIDIA, though NVIDIA is still higher), more TMUs (88 versus 80), higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s), and a smaller die (158 mm² versus 200 mm²) on a more advanced 7 nm process. It also has higher FP16 throughput. If a workload is memory-bandwidth-bound or relies on FP16 compute, the RX 5500M could theoretically close the gap, though the benchmark data shows no such scenario among the tested workloads. The RX 5500M also has a lower TDP of 85 W versus 95 W for the RTX A2000 Mobile, which could matter in thermally constrained laptops, but the performance penalty is severe.

For users who prioritize raw performance, ray tracing, or AI acceleration, the RTX A2000 Mobile is the clear winner. For users who need lower power draw or intend to rely on FP16 compute and higher memory bandwidth, the RX 5500M offers those specific advantages — but the benchmark data shows that in practice, the NVIDIA part still wins every tested scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 13821, which is higher than the AMD Radeon RX 5500M's 13356, a difference of approximately 3.5%.

Q: Does the AMD RX 5500M have any ray tracing cores?

A: No, the RX 5500M has null ray tracing cores and null tensor cores, while the RTX A2000 Mobile has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two GPUs?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark DirectX 11, where the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 68 versus 35 for the RX 5500M, a delta of 94.3%.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD RX 5500M has higher memory bandwidth at 224.0 GB/s, compared to 192.0 GB/s for the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile, despite both having 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the RTX A2000 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), with the NVIDIA part having a higher feature level.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD RX 5500M uses a 7 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 Mobile uses an 8 nm Samsung process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent NVIDIA sweep, but the margins vary meaningfully by workload. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 56518 against 38725 for the RX 5500M, a 45.9% delta. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is slightly larger at 48.9%, with scores of 53146 and 35693 respectively. These compute-oriented tests show the NVIDIA part's shader advantage (2560 versus 1408 units) translating into roughly 46-49% higher scores.

PassMark tests reveal even wider gaps in certain APIs. DirectX 10 shows a 46.2% delta (57 versus 39), but DirectX 11 jumps to 94.3% (68 versus 35) — the largest margin in the entire set. DirectX 12 also favors NVIDIA heavily at 67.9% (47 versus 28). Legacy DirectX 9 is the closest test at 15% (115 versus 100), suggesting that older games or applications that rely on DirectX 9 see the smallest performance difference. The 2D test (PassMark G2D) shows an 18.6% delta (491 versus 414), indicating a modest NVIDIA lead in desktop-style workloads.

The two most significant results for real-world gaming are PassMark G3D and PassMark GPU Compute. In G3D, the RTX A2000 Mobile scores 9611 versus 5848, a 64.3% delta — this is the headline gaming performance number. In GPU Compute, the delta is even larger at 87.1% (4334 versus 2316), showing that the NVIDIA part is vastly superior for compute tasks like rendering or physics simulations. The RTX A2000 Mobile's tensor cores and ray tracing cores likely contribute to this compute advantage, though the benchmark data alone shows the raw FP32 throughput difference (8.637 TFLOPS versus 4.632 TFLOPS) of roughly 86.5% closely matches the compute benchmark delta.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node differs: 8 nm Samsung for NVIDIA versus 7 nm TSMC for AMD. Transistor counts are 8,700 million versus 6,400 million, and die sizes are 200 mm² versus 158 mm², giving densities of 43.5M per mm² and 40.5M per mm² respectively. Clock speeds differ in base (1215 MHz versus 1375 MHz) and boost (1687 MHz versus 1645 MHz), with the AMD part also listing a game clock of 1448 MHz that the NVIDIA part does not have. Memory clocks differ, with NVIDIA at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) and AMD at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), leading to bandwidths of 192.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Compute resources are starkly different: shading units are 2560 versus 1408, TMUs are 80 versus 88, and ROPs are 48 versus 32. The NVIDIA part has 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, while the AMD part has null for both. Pixel rate is 80.98 GPixel/s versus 52.64 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 135.0 GTexel/s versus 144.8 GTexel/s — the AMD part actually has a higher texture rate due to its 88 TMUs, despite having fewer shading units. FP32 throughput is 8.637 TFLOPS versus 4.632 TFLOPS, but FP16 differs: the NVIDIA part has 8.637 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the AMD part has 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), making the AMD part faster in FP16.

Power and interface specs also differ: TDP is 95 W for NVIDIA versus 85 W for AMD, and the bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD. Both have no power connectors and are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for display outputs. The NVIDIA part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor with null slot width, while the AMD part has null slot width. API support differs in DirectX (12 Ultimate versus 12) but matches in OpenGL (4.6) and Vulkan (1.4). Release dates are 2021-04-11 for NVIDIA and 2019-10-06 for AMD, and neither has a launch MSRP listed.