AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile GPUs, with the AMD Radeon RX 5600M winning both head-to-head tests decisively. The RX 5600M scores 44.4% higher in Geekbench OpenCL and 29% higher in Geekbench Vulkan, yet the RTX A500 Mobile occupies a different design space entirely — one defined by dramatically lower power consumption and a professional-grade feature set. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense; they are answers to different questions, and the data reveals where each answer holds merit.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins on raw compute performance in every measured benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, it posts 59,589 points against the RTX A500 Mobile's 41,263 — a 44.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin tightens somewhat but remains substantial: 48,843 versus 37,873, a 29% lead. The RX 5600M also holds a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,320, a test the RTX A500 Mobile does not appear in the head-to-head list for, further cementing its performance edge in DirectX workloads.

The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile wins on efficiency and feature specialization. Its TDP is 30W versus the RX 5600M's 150W — a fivefold difference that changes the thermal and battery implications in a laptop chassis. The A500 also brings hardware ray tracing cores (16) and tensor cores (64), neither of which the RX 5600M possesses. For workloads that leverage these accelerators — ray-traced rendering or AI inference — the NVIDIA part offers capabilities the AMD chip simply cannot match, even if raw rasterization scores favor AMD.

The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story: the RX 5600M sits at the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the A500 sits at the 82nd. That 3-percentile gap is modest, given the wide performance delta in head-to-head tests, suggesting the A500's niche feature set and efficiency profile keep it competitive in overall standing despite lower compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The RX 5600M uses AMD's RDNA 1.0 architecture on a 7nm TSMC process, packing 10,300 million transistors into a 251 mm² die. The RTX A500 Mobile uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on an 8nm Samsung process, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The AMD chip has a higher transistor count and larger die, but the NVIDIA part achieves a higher transistor density: 43.5M per mm² versus 41.0M per mm².

Clock behavior differs significantly. The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz and a boost of 1265 MHz, with a game clock of 1190 MHz. The A500 starts lower at 832 MHz base but boosts much higher to 1537 MHz. This suggests the NVIDIA chip is designed to ramp aggressively under light loads, while the AMD part runs a flatter, more sustained clock curve — consistent with its higher power budget.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The RX 5600M offers 6GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A500 offers only 4GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, producing 96.00 GB/s — one-third the bandwidth. Both run 12 Gbps effective memory clocks, but the bus width difference is the dominant factor. The RX 5600M's larger frame buffer and wider interface make it better suited for high-resolution textures and memory-heavy workloads.

Compute unit layouts also differ. The RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The A500 has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD part's 2.25x advantage in TMUs and 2x advantage in ROPs explains its higher pixel rate (80.96 GPixel/s versus 49.18) and texture rate (182.2 GTexel/s versus 98.37). The A500 counters with 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which the RX 5600M lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 5600M leads in FP32 at 5.829 TFLOPS, but the RTX A500 Mobile actually posts a higher FP32 figure at 6.296 TFLOPS. However, in real-world Geekbench tests, the RX 5600M wins OpenCL by 44.4% and Vulkan by 29%.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The RX 5600M offers 288.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus with 6GB of GDDR6. The RTX A500 Mobile provides 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 4GB — exactly one-third the bandwidth and two-thirds the capacity.

Q: Does either GPU support hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the RTX A500 Mobile does, with 16 RT cores. The RX 5600M has no RT cores listed, and its DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus the A500's 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 5600M is rated at 150W TDP, while the RTX A500 Mobile is rated at 30W — a 120W difference that makes the NVIDIA part far more suitable for thin-and-light designs.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RTX A500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) compared to the RX 5600M's DirectX 12 (12_1). The A500's tensor cores also enable AI-accelerated features that the RX 5600M cannot access.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 5600M was released on 2020-07-06, and the RTX A500 Mobile on 2022-03-21.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5600M | NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile |

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

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1035 MHz | 832 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1265 MHz | 1537 MHz |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 144 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 64 |

| FP32 Performance | 5.829 TFLOPS | 6.296 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1) | 6.296 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 30 W |

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the most lopsided of the two head-to-head tests. The RX 5600M scores 59,589 against the A500's 41,263, a 44.4% margin that reflects the AMD part's substantial advantages in memory bandwidth (3x), TMUs (2.25x), and ROPs (2x). The A500's higher peak FP32 rating (6.296 TFLOPS versus 5.829) does not translate into real-world compute wins, likely because its narrow 64-bit memory bus starves the GPU of data. This is a case where theoretical peak throughput is misleading; the actual memory subsystem bottlenecks the A500's execution units.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap but does not close it. The RX 5600M scores 48,843 versus 37,873 for the A500, a 29% difference. Vulkan workloads often scale with driver overhead and command buffer efficiency; the RX 5600M's wider memory interface and higher texture throughput likely explain its persistence. Notably, the A500's Vulkan score is 8.2% lower than its OpenCL score, while the RX 5600M's Vulkan score drops 18% from its OpenCL result — suggesting the AMD part is relatively more sensitive to API-specific optimization, while the NVIDIA part maintains more consistent performance across APIs.

The RX 5600M also carries a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,320, a test absent from the A500's benchmark suite. This is a DirectX 12 workload where the RX 5600M's 12_1 feature level and 150W power budget can flex fully. The A500's absence from this test may indicate it is not positioned for high-end DX12 gaming, consistent with its professional Ampere lineage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the RX 5600M is the performance pick for rasterized gaming and compute-heavy tasks. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 29% and 44.4%, offers 6GB of memory versus 4GB, and delivers 3x the memory bandwidth. Its 85th percentile ranking versus the A500's 82nd confirms a modest but real overall performance advantage. Users who need maximum frame rates, high-resolution textures, or OpenCL/Vulkan compute throughput should choose the RX 5600M without hesitation.

The RTX A500 Mobile is the efficiency and feature pick. Its 30W TDP versus 150W means it can be deployed in far thinner, lighter, and longer-battery-life laptops. Its 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores enable ray tracing and AI workloads that the RX 5600M cannot handle at all — a capability gap no amount of raster performance can close. The A500's higher FP32 peak (6.296 TFLOPS) also hints at raw compute headroom that may be underutilized in the current benchmark set. For professional mobile workstations prioritizing portability, feature acceleration, and API completeness (DirectX 12 Ultimate), the A500 is the rational choice despite its lower benchmark scores.

The decision ultimately hinges on whether sustained power draw or specialized acceleration matters more. The RX 5600M is a brute-force performer; the A500 is a scalpel for specific workloads. Neither GPU is wrong — they are simply aimed at different targets, and the benchmark data makes that distinction unmistakable.