AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear split between the NVIDIA RTX A1000 and the AMD Radeon RX 6800, with each card winning in different API environments. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6800 delivers a score of 3188, which is 69.6% higher than the RTX A1000's 969. This is a decisive victory for AMD in a modern DirectX 12 workload, and it aligns with the RX 6800's positioning among its nearest rivals, where it sits just 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6700 and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti.

The Geekbench OpenCL results flip the script entirely. Here, the RTX A1000 scores 52078, which is 112.5% higher than the RX 6800's 24508. That is more than double the compute score, and it indicates that the workstation card is far better optimized for general-purpose compute tasks in this particular benchmark. The RTX A1000's nearest rival, the NVIDIA TITAN V, scores 34355, meaning the A1000 is actually 0.4% above that card on average, despite being a much lower-power product.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6800 takes back the lead with a score of 115107, which is 56.9% higher than the RTX A1000's 49574. This shows that AMD's RDNA 2 architecture scales very well under Vulkan, likely due to its higher raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth. The RX 6800's average benchmark score of 30095 places it 0.5% ahead of the RTX 3070 Ti and 1% ahead of the RTX 2080 Ti, while the RTX A1000's average of 34207 is 0.2% ahead of the RTX A2000 12 GB and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT.

Overall, the wins tally is 2 for the RX 6800 and 1 for the RTX A1000, but the magnitude of the A1000's OpenCL victory is substantial enough to raise questions about workload suitability.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon RX 6800 is the clear choice for gamers and anyone running DirectX 12 or Vulkan workloads. Its 69.6% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad and 56.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are decisive, and its percentile ranking of 75 versus the RTX A1000's 79 is close enough that the average scores do not tell the full story. The RX 6800 also has a much larger memory pool and higher bandwidth, which matters for high-resolution textures and large datasets.

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the pick for compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL. Its 112.5% advantage in that benchmark is not a small margin; it is a doubling of performance. If your workflow is built around OpenCL, the RTX A1000 is the only rational option based on these numbers. It also draws far less power, with a 50 W TDP versus 250 W, and it fits in a single slot, which could be critical for dense workstation builds.

For anyone who wants a card that does both gaming and compute reasonably well, the RX 6800's Vulkan and DirectX results outweigh the A1000's single OpenCL win, but the A1000's compute efficiency cannot be ignored. The data does not support calling one card universally better; it supports a workload-dependent choice.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural families and process nodes. The RTX A1000 uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on a GA107 chip, built on Samsung's 8 nm process. The RX 6800 uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 21 chip, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. The transistor counts are starkly different: the A1000 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the RX 6800 has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. This gives the RX 6800 a higher transistor density of 51.5M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm² for the A1000.

The shading resources differ significantly. The RX 6800 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, while the A1000 has 2304 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6800 also has 60 ray tracing cores, while the A1000 has 18. The A1000 has 72 tensor cores, which the RX 6800 lacks entirely. This is a major architectural distinction: tensor cores are NVIDIA's dedicated AI acceleration hardware, and their presence means the A1000 can handle certain machine learning tasks that the RX 6800 cannot accelerate in the same way.

Clock speeds are much higher on the RX 6800, with a base clock of 1700 MHz and a boost of 2105 MHz, compared to the A1000's 727 MHz base and 1462 MHz boost. The memory configuration is also vastly different: 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800 has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, offering 32.33 TFLOPS of FP16 versus 16.17 TFLOPS of FP32, while the A1000 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, both at 6.737 TFLOPS.

The bus interface differs as well: the A1000 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6800's display outputs include HDMI 2.1, two DisplayPort 1.4a ports, and a USB Type-C port, while the A1000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RX 6800 is dual-slot with two 8-pin power connectors and a suggested 600 W PSU, while the A1000 is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 52078 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 112.5% higher than the RX 6800's 24508. This is the largest single-benchmark gap in the comparison.

Q: Which card is faster in DirectX 12 gaming workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 scores 3188 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, which is 69.6% higher than the RTX A1000's 969. This indicates a massive advantage for AMD in modern DX12 titles.

Q: Does the RTX A1000 have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the RTX A1000 has 72 tensor cores, while the RX 6800 has none. This makes the A1000 potentially better suited for AI and machine learning workloads that leverage tensor core acceleration.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The RX 6800 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX A1000 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors, while the RX 6800 has a TDP of 250 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the A1000 and 600 W for the RX 6800.

Q: Which card is more recent?

A: The RTX A1000 was released on 2024-04-15, while the RX 6800 was released on 2020-10-27. The A1000 is currently active in production, while the RX 6800 is end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 wins in DirectX 12 and Vulkan, which are the primary APIs for gaming and most real-time graphics applications. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 3188 is 69.6% ahead of the A1000, and its Vulkan score of 115107 is 56.9% ahead. The RX 6800 also has 16 GB of memory and 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which makes it better suited for high-resolution textures, large scene complexity, and any workload that benefits from fast memory access. Its higher pixel rate of 202.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 505.2 GTexel/s further reinforce its dominance in rasterization-heavy tasks.

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins in OpenCL, where its 52078 score is 112.5% higher than the RX 6800. This suggests that for compute workloads that use OpenCL, such as certain scientific simulations, image processing, or custom compute kernels, the A1000 is the better performer. The presence of 72 tensor cores is another advantage for AI-adjacent tasks, even though the benchmark data does not directly measure that capability. The A1000's much lower TDP of 50 W and single-slot form factor also make it a winner for space-constrained or power-sensitive builds.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ according to the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A1000 | AMD Radeon RX 6800 |

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

| Chip | GA107 | Navi 21 |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 26,800 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 727 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1462 MHz | 2105 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 1815 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 72 | 240 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 18 | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | 72 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 46.78 GPixel/s | 202.1 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 105.3 GTexel/s | 505.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.737 TFLOPS | 16.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) | 32.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 250 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions | 163 mm (6.4 inches) length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) height | 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 120 mm (4.7 inches) height, 40 mm (1.6 inches) width |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2020-10-27 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Navi |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Navi III |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 579 USD |