AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 67,695 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 62,427 for the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM, a 7.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A2000 leads by 22.2% with 69,089 points against 53,743.

Q: How does the RTX A2000 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The A2000 sits at the 85th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 46,043. Its closest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972, 0.2% slower), the Intel Arc A730M (45,592, 1.0% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601, 1.2% faster), and the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, 1.2% faster).

Q: What is the AMD card's position relative to its own competitors?

A: The RX 5600 OEM sits at the 87th percentile with an average score of 58,085. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A570M (58,239, 0.3% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (58,392, 0.5% faster), the Intel Arc A580 (57,756, 0.6% slower), and the NVIDIA P102-100 (58,528, 0.8% faster).

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both use 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 1500 MHz memory clock (12 Gbps effective). The memory subsystem is identical.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 have ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes. The A2000 includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 5600 OEM has no dedicated RT or tensor cores and supports DirectX 12 (12_1) only.

Q: Which card draws less power?

A: The RTX A2000 has a 70 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 5600 OEM has a 125 W TDP, requires one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM is built on the Navi 10 chip using TSMC's 7 nm process with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. It uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture, part of the Navi (RX 5000) generation, with a transistor density of 41.0 million per mm². The chip packs 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It has no RT cores or tensor cores, and its FP16 throughput is 12.78 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, which is double its FP32 rate of 6.390 TFLOPS.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm node. It integrates 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, yielding 43.5 million transistors per mm². The Ampere architecture brings 3328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, plus 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 7.987 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no FP16 acceleration advantage. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) whereas the RX 5600 OEM only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1).

The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 8 nm. The AMD part achieves higher pixel rate (99.84 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (199.7 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s), driven by its higher ROP and TMU counts plus a much faster boost clock of 1560 MHz versus 1200 MHz. However, the NVIDIA part has more shading units and tensor/RT hardware, which explains its lead in compute-oriented benchmarks.

Clock behavior also differs. The RX 5600 OEM lists base, boost, and game clocks at 1130 MHz, 1560 MHz, and 1375 MHz respectively. The A2000 lists only base (562 MHz) and boost (1200 MHz), with no game clock field. The AMD card's higher clocks and wider ROP/TMU configuration make it a rasterization-focused part, while the A2000's architecture is designed for workstation features like ray tracing and AI acceleration.

The Verdict

The RTX A2000 is the clear winner in the two recorded benchmark tests. It beats the RX 5600 OEM by 7.8% in OpenCL and by 22.2% in Vulkan. For any workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan APIs, the A2000 is the better choice based on the data.

The RX 5600 OEM does have a higher percentile ranking (87th versus 85th) and a higher average benchmark score (58,085 versus 46,043). But that average is drawn from a different set of tests. In the direct head-to-head comparisons available, the A2000 wins both. The AMD card's higher average score comes from its own benchmark pool, which includes Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 62,427 and 53,743, while the A2000's average includes an additional 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,345, which drags its average down.

Who should pick which? If the workload is purely rasterization with high pixel throughput, the RX 5600 OEM's 99.84 GPixel/s and 199.7 GTexel/s rates are attractive. If the workload involves Vulkan performance, ray tracing, tensor operations, or lower power consumption, the A2000 is the data-backed choice. The A2000 also has a compact 167 mm length and 69 mm height, making it easier to fit in small chassis. The RX 5600 OEM has no recorded dimensions.

For a builder prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the A2000 wins. For someone relying on raw pixel and texture fill rates, the RX 5600 OEM has the edge on paper, but the benchmark data does not include a rasterization test to confirm that advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification except memory. Here is the breakdown:

• Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) for AMD, 8 nm (Samsung) for NVIDIA
• Transistors: 10,300 million versus 12,000 million
• Die size: 251 mm² versus 276 mm²
• Transistor density: 41.0M/mm² versus 43.5M/mm²
• Base clock: 1130 MHz versus 562 MHz
• Boost clock: 1560 MHz versus 1200 MHz
• Game clock: 1375 MHz (AMD only, NVIDIA has no game clock)
• Shading units: 2048 versus 3328
• TMUs: 128 versus 104
• ROPs: 64 versus 48
• RT cores: none versus 26
• Tensor cores: none versus 104
• Pixel rate: 99.84 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 199.7 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 6.390 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS
• FP16: 12.78 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 125 W versus 70 W
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 250 W
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b + 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Dimensions: no recorded length/height for AMD; A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high
• Release date: 2020-01-20 versus 2021-08-09
• Launch MSRP: none recorded for AMD; A2000 has a launch MSRP of 449 USD

Memory is identical: 6 GB GDDR6, 192-bit bus, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, 1500 MHz memory clock. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 and are dual-slot cards. Both are end-of-life production status. The A2000 succeeds the Quadro Turing line and is followed by Workstation Ada; the RX 5600 OEM succeeds Vega and is followed by Navi II.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. Both use Geekbench, but they test different compute APIs.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67,695 against the RX 5600 OEM's 62,427. That is a 7.8% margin. The A2000's higher FP32 throughput (7.987 TFLOPS versus 6.390 TFLOPS) is a plausible contributor, along with its 3328 shading units versus 2048. However, the RX 5600 OEM has a much higher boost clock (1560 MHz versus 1200 MHz) and faster pixel/texture rates, which narrows the gap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A2000 extends its lead substantially. It scores 69,089 against 53,743, a 22.2% advantage. This is a much larger margin than the OpenCL test. The A2000's architecture likely handles Vulkan's explicit compute and graphics paths more efficiently, aided by its RT and tensor cores even if those are not directly exercised in a pure compute benchmark. The RX 5600 OEM's Vulkan score is 14.1% lower than its own OpenCL score, while the A2000's Vulkan score is 2.1% higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the AMD card loses more performance when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan, while the NVIDIA card slightly gains.

The head-to-head record is 0 wins for the AMD card and 2 wins for the NVIDIA card. There are no benchmark tests in the database where the RX 5600 OEM beats the A2000.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins in compute API performance. Both recorded benchmarks favor it. The OpenCL win is moderate at 7.8%, but the Vulkan win is decisive at 22.2%. If software uses Vulkan, the A2000 is the stronger pick by a wide margin. The A2000 also offers ray tracing hardware (26 RT cores) and tensor cores (104), which the AMD card lacks entirely. For workloads that leverage those features, the A2000 is the only option between the two.

AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM wins in raw rasterization throughput. The RX 5600 OEM has a 99.84 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 57.60 GPixel/s for the A2000, a 73% advantage. Its texture rate is 199.7 GTexel/s versus 124.8 GTexel/s, a 60% lead. It also has more ROPs (64 versus 48) and TMUs (128 versus 104). These figures suggest that in traditional fill-rate-bound scenarios, the AMD card should perform better, though no direct benchmark in the database confirms this. The RX 5600 OEM also has a higher FP16 rate (12.78 TFLOPS versus 7.987 TFLOPS), which could benefit workloads using FP16 with a 2:1 shader ratio.

Power and physical footprint favor the NVIDIA card. The A2000 draws 70 W versus 125 W, needs no power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU versus 300 W. It is also a compact 167 mm long and 69 mm high, while the RX 5600 OEM has no recorded dimensions. For small-form-factor builds or systems with tight power budgets, the A2000 is the practical choice.

API feature set favors the NVIDIA card. The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5600 OEM is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). This means the A2000 can expose features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading in DX12 Ultimate titles. The AMD card cannot.

The RX 5600 OEM wins on display connectivity variety. It offers one HDMI 2.0b port plus three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A2000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and no HDMI. If a build needs HDMI without an adapter, the AMD card is more convenient.

Release timing favors the NVIDIA card for longevity. The A2000 launched on 2021-08-09, roughly a year and a half after the RX 5600 OEM's 2020-01-20 release. Both are end-of-life, but the A2000's newer architecture likely has better driver maturity for current APIs. The A2000's launch MSRP was 449 USD, though no MSRP is recorded for the AMD card.