AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB and the AMD Radeon RX 6800 shows a stark split across two very different benchmark workloads. In the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, the AMD Radeon RX 6800 posts a score of 3188, which is 58.9% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB’s 1309. This is a decisive victory for the AMD card in a modern, graphics-heavy DirectX 12 scenario, and it aligns with the RX 6800’s positioning as a high-throughput consumer gaming GPU.

The reverse is true in Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66998, a massive 173.4% advantage over the AMD Radeon RX 6800’s 24508. That delta is the single largest performance gap in the head-to-head data, and it is worth pausing on. The A2000 is a professional workstation card, and its OpenCL result shows that in compute-oriented workloads, it can more than double the output of the RX 6800, despite the RX 6800 having a higher raw FP32 rating in the specifications. The data suggests the two cards are not competing on the same plane: one is built for rasterization throughput, the other for professional compute tasks.

When looking at the broader average benchmark scores, the picture becomes more nuanced. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB has an average benchmark score of 34154, placing it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (average score 34133, a 0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (average score 34207, a -0.2% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 480 (average score 33997, a 0.5% delta). The A2000 is essentially neck-and-neck with these cards, with deltas within a single percentage point. This indicates that its average performance across the full test suite sits in a well-populated mid-range band, not far from older consumer cards.

The AMD Radeon RX 6800, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 30095, which places it in the 75th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (average score 29945, a 0.5% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile (average score 29928, a 0.6% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (average score 29783, a 1% delta), and the AMD Radeon RX 6700 (average score 30433, a -1.1% delta). The RX 6800’s average score is slightly lower than the A2000’s average, but its rival set is composed of much faster consumer GPUs. This is an important distinction: the RX 6800 is competing with high-end consumer cards from previous generations, while the A2000 is competing with entry-level workstation and older mid-range consumer parts.

The head-to-head data tells a story of specialization. The AMD card wins the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test by 58.9%, while the NVIDIA card wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 173.4%. In terms of raw win counts, each card takes one benchmark. The magnitude of the OpenCL win, however, is far greater than the magnitude of the 3DMark win, which means that for users who prioritize compute performance, the A2000 is the clear choice, while for those who prioritize gaming or DirectX 12 rendering, the RX 6800 dominates.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA106 chip, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. The die size is 276 mm², with 12,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture, with the Navi 21 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. Its die is 520 mm², housing 26,800 million transistors, for a density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is significant: 8 nm versus 7 nm, and the transistor density is higher on the AMD chip, which is consistent with its larger transistor budget.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The A2000 has a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The RX 6800 has a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 1815 MHz, and a boost clock of 2105 MHz. The AMD card runs at much higher frequencies, which partially explains its advantage in rasterization tests. The A2000’s low clock speeds are characteristic of a workstation card tuned for power efficiency and sustained compute workloads, not peak frequency.

Memory architecture is another divider. The A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 12 Gbps. The RX 6800 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 16 Gbps. The RX 6800 has both more memory and nearly double the bandwidth, which is a major factor in its 3DMark victory.

The compute resources are also different. The A2000 has 3328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, 48 raster operation units, 26 ray tracing cores, and 104 tensor cores. The RX 6800 has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 raster operation units, and 60 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores. The AMD card has more shading units, more TMUs, and more ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has a dedicated tensor core array that the AMD card lacks. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS, while the RX 6800 delivers 16.17 TFLOPS. In FP16, the A2000 offers 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the RX 6800 offers 32.33 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which indicates a strong FP16 advantage for the AMD card.

Power and physical specifications reinforce the different design goals. The A2000 has a TDP of 70 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It is a dual-slot card, 167 mm long (6.6 inches) and 69 mm tall (2.7 inches). The RX 6800 has a TDP of 250 W, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. It is also dual-slot, but much larger: 267 mm long (10.5 inches), 120 mm tall (4.7 inches), and 40 mm wide (1.6 inches). The A2000 is clearly designed for compact, low-power workstation builds, while the RX 6800 is a full-size consumer card.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 wins in scenarios that stress raw graphics throughput. Its 58.9% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is the clearest indicator: for DirectX 12 gaming, high-resolution rendering, and any workload that relies on rasterization and high memory bandwidth, the RX 6800 is the stronger part. Its 16 GB memory pool and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a substantial buffer for large textures and high-resolution assets. It also has a 202.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and a 505.2 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to the A2000’s 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s. Those numbers point to a large advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB wins in compute and professional workloads. Its 173.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the standout metric. The presence of 104 tensor cores and a 1:1 FP16 ratio makes it well suited for AI inference, scientific compute, and OpenCL-based applications. The 70 W TDP also means it can be deployed in systems where power and cooling are constrained, and its compact 167 mm length allows for smaller chassis. The A2000’s average benchmark score of 34154 is higher than the RX 6800’s 30095, which suggests that in a balanced mix of tests, the A2000 actually comes out ahead on average, even though it loses the 3DMark test by a wide margin.

For users who need a card for gaming or real-time rendering, the RX 6800 is the clear pick. For users who need a card for compute, machine learning, or professional OpenCL workloads, the A2000 is the better choice. The data does not support a single “best” card; it supports two different cards for two different jobs.

Specification Differences

The most direct specification differences between the two cards are as follows. The A2000 uses the GA106 chip on 8 nm, while the RX 6800 uses Navi 21 on 7 nm. Transistor counts are 12,000 million versus 26,800 million; die sizes are 276 mm² versus 520 mm². The A2000 has a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost of 1200 MHz; the RX 6800 has a base of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 1815 MHz, and a boost of 2105 MHz. Memory differs: 12 GB versus 16 GB, 192-bit versus 256-bit bus, 288.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 12 Gbps versus 16 Gbps effective. Shading units are 3328 versus 3840; TMUs are 104 versus 240; ROPs are 48 versus 96; ray tracing cores are 26 versus 60. The A2000 has 104 tensor cores; the RX 6800 has none. FP32 is 7.987 TFLOPS versus 16.17 TFLOPS; FP16 is 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 32.33 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate is 57.60 GPixel/s versus 202.1 GPixel/s; texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s versus 505.2 GTexel/s. TDP is 70 W versus 250 W; power connectors are none versus 2x 8-pin; suggested PSU is 250 W versus 600 W. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. Physical size is 167 mm by 69 mm versus 267 mm by 120 mm by 40 mm. Release dates are 2021-11-22 for the A2000 and 2020-10-27 for the RX 6800. The launch MSRP for the A2000 is 449 USD; for the RX 6800 it is 579 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800, with 16.17 TFLOPS versus the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB’s 7.987 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card performs better in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800, with a score of 3188 versus the A2000’s 1309, a 58.9% advantage.

Q: Which card performs better in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, with a score of 66998 versus the RX 6800’s 24508, a 173.4% advantage.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the RX 6800 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The A2000 has a TDP of 70 W, while the RX 6800 has a TDP of 250 W.

Q: Does the AMD card have tensor cores?

A: No, the RX 6800 has no tensor cores; the A2000 has 104 tensor cores.