AMD Radeon RX 7700S vs NVIDIA RTX A6000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA RTX A6000 and AMD Radeon RX 7700S are not competing in the same arena, and the benchmark data makes that clear. The RTX A6000 is a workstation-class card designed for professional compute and content creation, while the RX 7700S is a mobile GPU aimed at thin-and-light gaming laptops. If your priority is raw compute throughput, massive memory capacity, or professional application performance, the RTX A6000 is the only serious choice. If you are building or buying a portable system where power draw and physical footprint matter more than absolute performance, the RX 7700S fits that role, but it is vastly outclassed in every recorded benchmark. The data shows a 207.9% lead for the A6000 in Geekbench OpenCL and a 352.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. There is no scenario in these measurements where the RX 7700S wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The RTX A6000 uses the GA102 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The RX 7700S uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a higher transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The smaller, denser chip means the AMD part is far more efficient in terms of physical silicon, but that does not translate into performance parity.

Core counts differ drastically. The RTX A6000 has 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, 112 ROPs, 84 ray tracing cores, and 336 tensor cores. The RX 7700S has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. Clock speeds are higher on the AMD side: the RX 7700S boosts to 2500 MHz versus 1800 MHz for the A6000, and it has a game clock of 2200 MHz. The A6000 base clock is 1410 MHz, while the RX 7700S base is 1500 MHz. Despite the higher clocks, the A6000's massive shader count delivers more than double the FP32 throughput: 38.71 TFLOPS versus 20.48 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is interesting: the A6000 does 38.71 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 7700S does 40.96 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the AMD part is faster in half-precision work despite being slower in single precision.

Memory is another major split. The RTX A6000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The A6000 uses a dual-slot form factor with an 8-pin EPS power connector and a 300 W TDP, while the RX 7700S is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) design with no power connectors and a 100 W TDP. Both support PCIe 4.0 x16, both run DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A6000 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the RX 7700S outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the RTX A6000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A6000 scores 193,937 against the RX 7700S's 62,983, a delta of 207.9%. That is more than triple the compute score, which aligns with the A6000's 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 and 336 tensor cores. The RX 7700S cannot close that gap with its higher boost clock or its 20.48 TFLOPS FP32.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap is even larger. The A6000 scores 164,462 versus 36,380 for the RX 7700S, a delta of 352.1%. Vulkan is often a strong API for AMD hardware, but here the A6000's shader count and memory bandwidth simply overwhelm the mobile part. A 352.1% lead is not a minor edge; it is a generation-scale difference in graphics and compute capability.

The RX 7700S has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only recorded tests are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, plus a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,185, which has no A6000 equivalent in the database. The A6000 also has additional PassMark scores: DirectX 10 at 155, DirectX 11 at 191, DirectX 12 at 87, DirectX 9 at 245, G2D at 913, G3D at 22,577, and GPU compute at 14,110. These are not directly comparable to the RX 7700S, but they show the A6000 is a well-rounded performer across legacy and modern APIs.

FAQ

Q: Is the RTX A6000 always faster than the RX 7700S?

A: In every recorded head-to-head benchmark, yes. The A6000 leads by 207.9% in Geekbench OpenCL and 352.1% in Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 7700S has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: Why does the RX 7700S have a higher boost clock but still lose?

A: The RX 7700S boosts to 2500 MHz versus 1800 MHz for the A6000, but clock speed is only part of the equation. The A6000 has 10,752 shading units versus 2,048, and 336 TMUs versus 128. More execution units at lower clocks can still produce far higher total throughput, as seen in the 38.71 TFLOPS FP32 versus 20.48 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A6000 has 768.0 GB/s from 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. The RX 7700S has 288.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The A6000 has nearly 2.7 times the bandwidth.

Q: Can the RX 7700S run the same software as the RTX A6000?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. However, the A6000 has 336 tensor cores, which are essential for AI and machine learning workloads; the RX 7700S has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The RTX A6000 has a 300 W TDP with an 8-pin EPS connector and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The RX 7700S has a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU because it is an IGP designed for portable devices.

Q: Which GPU is better for a laptop?

A: The RX 7700S is an IGP with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for portable systems. The RTX A6000 is a dual-slot card with a 300 W TDP and an 8-pin EPS connector, which is not feasible for a laptop form factor. But for performance, the A6000 is overwhelmingly faster.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A6000 wins in every measurable performance category from the database. It dominates compute workloads, as shown by the 207.9% OpenCL lead and the 352.1% Vulkan lead. Its 48 GB memory capacity and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, 3D rendering, and professional visualization tasks. The 336 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and training, which the RX 7700S lacks entirely. The A6000 also has a higher pixel rate (201.6 GPixel/s versus 160.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (604.8 GTexel/s versus 320.0 GTexel/s), so rasterization-heavy workloads also favor the NVIDIA card.

The RX 7700S wins on efficiency and form factor. It has a 100 W TDP versus 300 W, no external power connectors, and an IGP design that fits into laptops. Its die is 204 mm² versus 628 mm², and it uses a 6 nm process versus 8 nm, so it is a much smaller and cooler package. In FP16 compute, the RX 7700S records 40.96 TFLOPS, which is higher than the A6000's 38.71 TFLOPS, making it potentially better for half-precision workloads if software can leverage the 2:1 ratio. It also has a higher boost clock at 2500 MHz, which may help in lightly threaded tasks. For someone building a thin gaming laptop, the RX 7700S is the only viable option here, but it is not a performance competitor to the A6000.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | AMD Radeon RX 7700S |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | GA102 | Navi 33 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1410 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1800 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 10,752 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 336 | 128 |

| ROPs | 112 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 84 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 201.6 GPixel/s | 160.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 604.8 GTexel/s | 320.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 38.71 TFLOPS | 20.48 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 38.71 TFLOPS (1:1) | 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | N/A |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm length, 112 mm height | N/A |

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

| Release Date | 2020-10-04 | 2023-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Polaris Mobile |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | N/A |

| Launch MSRP | 4,649 USD | N/A |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 44,075 | 33,849 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 84 | 78 |