AMD Radeon RX 5700 vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 records an average benchmark score of 26683, which places it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 averages 22170, sitting in the 67th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The RTX A4000 scores 2604 versus 1862 for the RX 5700, a 39.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card in this DirectX 12 workload.

Q: Which card has more memory, and does the bandwidth differ?

A: The RTX A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory while the RX 5700 has 8 GB. Both use a 256-bit bus and deliver identical memory bandwidth of 448.0 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A4000 has a TDP of 140 W with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W PSU. The RX 5700 has a TDP of 180 W, uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector, and recommends a 450 W PSU.

Q: Does the RX 5700 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The RX 5700 has no RT cores listed, while the RTX A4000 features 48 RT cores. The RX 5700 also lacks tensor cores, whereas the RTX A4000 has 192.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RTX A4000 contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, while the RX 5700 packs 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. The A4000 also has a higher transistor density at 44.4M per mm² versus 41.0M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA104 chip, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm process. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 10 chip, produced on TSMC's 7 nm node. While the RX 5700 benefits from a smaller process node, the RTX A4000 compensates with a substantially larger die: 392 mm² versus 251 mm².

Transistor counts reflect this scale difference. The GA104 packs 17,400 million transistors, a 69% increase over the Navi 10's 10,300 million. The transistor density advantage is narrower, with the A4000 at 44.4 million transistors per mm² versus 41.0 million for the RX 5700.

The shading resources differ dramatically. The RTX A4000 features 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The RX 5700 has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This 2.7x ratio in shading units translates directly into compute throughput: the A4000 delivers 19.17 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RX 5700 manages 7.949 TFLOPS. The A4000 also matches FP16 performance at 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), whereas the RX 5700 achieves 15.90 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio.

Ray tracing and AI acceleration represent the clearest architectural split. The RTX A4000 includes 48 dedicated RT cores and 192 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and tensor operations. The RX 5700 has neither RT cores nor tensor cores, relying entirely on its shader array for all workloads. This difference is reflected in API support: the A4000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Clock behavior also differs. The RX 5700 runs at a base clock of 1465 MHz and boosts to 1725 MHz, with a game clock of 1625 MHz. The RTX A4000 has a lower base of 735 MHz but boosts to 1560 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A4000 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 149.8 GPixel/s and 299.5 GTexel/s, versus 110.4 GPixel/s and 248.4 GTexel/s for the RX 5700.

Memory configurations are identical in bus width and bandwidth, but not capacity. Both use GDDR6 over a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A4000 offers 16 GB, double the RX 5700's 8 GB. Memory clock is the same at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Physical specifications show divergent design goals. The RTX A4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 112 mm in height, with one 6-pin connector. The RX 5700 is a dual-slot card at 268 mm long, 111 mm high, and 36 mm wide, requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The RX 5700 also carries a higher TDP of 180 W versus 140 W for the A4000, and suggests a 450 W PSU compared to 300 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the RTX A4000 wins all 10 benchmark comparisons, with no victories for the RX 5700. The largest margin appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A4000 scores 127645 against 64166, a 98.9% advantage. This nearly doubles the AMD card's output in Vulkan compute workloads.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a similar pattern, though less extreme. The A4000 records 105739 versus 69603 for the RX 5700, a 51.9% lead. This aligns with the compute-focused design of the Ampere architecture, with its additional shading units and tensor cores.

In DirectX tests, the A4000 maintains consistent leads. PassMark DirectX 11 shows 158 versus 101, a 56.4% margin. DirectX 10 records 126 versus 87, a 44.8% advantage. DirectX 12 shows 72 versus 54, a 33.3% lead. DirectX 9 is the closest result, with 240 versus 209, a 14.8% edge for the A4000.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 benchmark, a modern DirectX 12 test, gives the A4000 a 2604 score against 1862 for the RX 5700, a 39.8% win. This suggests the A4000 holds its advantage in current-generation workloads, not just legacy tests.

PassMark G3D, a general gaming and graphics metric, shows 19459 for the A4000 versus 14314 for the RX 5700, a 35.9% difference. The G2D test, which measures 2D graphics performance, records 1024 versus 877, a 16.8% edge.

PassMark GPU Compute reinforces the compute dominance. The A4000 scores 9760 versus 6517, a 49.8% advantage. This near-50% lead in compute throughput aligns with the theoretical FP32 difference of 19.17 TFLOPS versus 7.949 TFLOPS, though the measured gap is smaller than the raw specification suggests.

Across all tests, the smallest margin is the 14.8% in DirectX 9, and the largest is the 98.9% in Vulkan. The A4000's wins range from moderate to overwhelming, with no test where the RX 5700 comes close to parity. The average benchmark scores reflect this: 26683 for the A4000 versus 22170 for the RX 5700, a 20.4% overall difference.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture. The NVIDIA RTX A4000 outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 5700 in every recorded benchmark, with win margins ranging from 14.8% to 98.9%. The average score advantage of 26683 versus 22170 places the A4000 in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, five points higher than the RX 5700's 67th percentile.

For compute-heavy workloads, the choice is clear. The A4000's 51.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 49.8% lead in PassMark GPU Compute make it the superior option for general-purpose GPU computing. The Vulkan result, a 98.9% advantage, is particularly striking and suggests the A4000's architecture extracts far more performance from Vulkan APIs.

For gaming and graphics workloads, the A4000 still wins, but the margins are smaller. The 35.9% lead in PassMark G3D and 39.8% in 3DMark Steel Nomad indicate solid, consistent advantages. Even the closest result, the 14.8% edge in DirectX 9, shows no scenario where the RX 5700 takes the lead.

The RX 5700's case rests on other factors. It launched earlier, in July 2019 versus April 2021 for the A4000, and carries a launch MSRP of 349 USD. Its dual-slot design and 180 W TDP might suit systems where the A4000's single-slot profile is not required. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the data offers no reason to prefer the RX 5700.

Users who need ray tracing or tensor operations have only one option: the A4000, with its 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The RX 5700 lacks both entirely. Similarly, the A4000's 16 GB memory capacity is double the RX 5700's 8 GB, a meaningful advantage for large datasets or high-resolution textures, even though bandwidth is identical.

The verdict is straightforward: the RTX A4000 is the stronger GPU in every measured dimension. The RX 5700 remains a viable card for its lower power draw relative to its performance class, but the benchmark data shows no category where it surpasses the A4000.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A4000 | AMD Radeon RX 5700 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

| Chip | GA104 | Navi 10 |

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

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 10,300 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 735 MHz | 1465 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1560 MHz | 1725 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 1625 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 192 | 144 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 48 | N/A |

| Tensor Cores | 192 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 149.8 GPixel/s | 110.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 299.5 GTexel/s | 248.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 19.17 TFLOPS | 7.949 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) | 15.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 140 W | 180 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 450 W |

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

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

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 268 mm (10.6 inches) |

| Height | 112 mm (4.4 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | N/A | 36 mm (1.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2019-07-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Vega |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Navi II |