NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two NVIDIA parts, with the GeForce RTX 5090 winning both shared benchmark tests by substantial margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A100 PCIe 40 GB scores 178,627 points, while the RTX 5090 reaches 334,370 points, making the newer card 46.6% faster per the delta percentage. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the A100 manages 146,380 points against the RTX 5090's 376,728, a 61.1% advantage for the GeForce card. These are the only two tests where both products have recorded scores in the database, so the head-to-head picture is narrow but unambiguous.

The RTX 5090's raw compute advantage appears consistent with its much larger shading unit count and higher clock speeds. The A100's 19.49 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is dwarfed by the RTX 5090's 104.8 TFLOPS, a 5.4x difference that explains why the OpenCL gap is so wide. For Vulkan, the RTX 5090's modern API support (Vulkan 1.4 versus no listed Vulkan version for the A100) likely compounds the architectural lead. The A100's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 162,504, while the RTX 5090's average is 79,842, but this figure is skewed by the GeForce card's inclusion of several Passmark tests with low scores (DirectX 9 at 395, DirectX 10 at 226, DirectX 11 at 341, DirectX 12 at 185) that are not present in the A100's benchmark list. When comparing only the overlapping Geekbench tests, the RTX 5090 wins outright.

The A100 does not win a single shared benchmark in the database. Its percentile ranking among all GPUs is 97, higher than the RTX 5090's 92, which reflects the A100's position among professional compute parts rather than any head-to-head victory. The data suggests that for the specific workloads these two tests represent, the consumer-oriented Blackwell card is simply in a different performance class.

# Where Each One Wins

The A100 PCIe 40 GB is built for a different arena entirely. Its 40 GB of HBM2e memory with 1.56 TB/s bandwidth and 5120-bit bus width positions it for memory-capacity-bound server workloads, even if its raw compute throughput is lower. The RTX 5090 counters with 32 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, delivering 1.79 TB/s bandwidth, which is 14.7% higher than the A100's figure. For tasks that need massive VRAM capacity, the A100's extra 8 GB could matter, though the RTX 5090's higher bandwidth suggests it moves data faster per byte.

The RTX 5090 wins on every measurable compute front in the database: FP32 (104.8 TFLOPS versus 19.49 TFLOPS), FP16 (104.8 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio versus 77.97 TFLOPS at 4:1 ratio), pixel rate (423.6 GPixel/s versus 225.6 GPixel/s), and texture rate (1,636.8 GTexel/s versus 609.1 GTexel/s). It also brings dedicated ray tracing cores (170) and a higher tensor core count (680 versus 432). The A100 has no listed RT cores, making it unsuitable for ray-traced workloads in the database's view.

For use-case selection, the data points to the RTX 5090 for any task measured by Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, which typically correlate with gaming, rendering, and general GPU compute. The A100's strengths lie in its server-oriented design: dual-slot form factor, 8-pin EPS power connector (versus 16-pin), no display outputs, and an end-of-life production status that suggests it was designed for datacenter deployment rather than desktop use. The A100's 250 W TDP versus the RTX 5090's 575 W indicates the older card is far more power-efficient per watt, though the RTX 5090 delivers more absolute performance.

# Architecture Differences

The A100 uses the GA100 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, built on the Ampere architecture, while the RTX 5090 uses the GB202 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, based on Blackwell 2.0. The process node shrink from 7 nm to 5 nm allows the RTX 5090 to pack 92,200 million transistors into a 750 mm² die, compared to the A100's 54,200 million transistors on a larger 826 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter for the RTX 5090 versus 65.6 million for the A100, a 87.3% density improvement that explains how the newer card achieves such high compute figures.

The A100's memory subsystem uses HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus, a configuration optimized for high-bandwidth server workloads. The RTX 5090 uses GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus, a consumer-oriented approach that still delivers higher bandwidth (1.79 TB/s versus 1.56 TB/s). The A100's tensor cores are specialized for AI training and inference, while the RTX 5090's tensor cores are paired with 170 RT cores for hybrid rendering workloads.

The A100 has no listed display outputs, confirming its compute-only role, while the RTX 5090 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The A100 uses an 8-pin EPS power connector common in servers, versus the RTX 5090's single 16-pin connector. The A100's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RTX 5090 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, offering double the bandwidth for data transfer. The A100's API support is unlisted for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, while the RTX 5090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating its consumer and gaming focus.

# Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory capacity: the A100 offers 40 GB versus the RTX 5090's 32 GB. Memory type differs fundamentally, HBM2e versus GDDR7, with bus widths of 5120 bit versus 512 bit. Clock speeds favor the RTX 5090 significantly: base clock of 2017 MHz versus 765 MHz, boost clock of 2407 MHz versus 1410 MHz, and memory clock of 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) versus 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). The RTX 5090 has 21,760 shading units versus 6,912, 680 TMUs versus 432, 176 ROPs versus 160, and 680 tensor cores versus 432. The RTX 5090 adds 170 RT cores where the A100 has none.

Pixel rate is 423.6 GPixel/s versus 225.6 GPixel/s, texture rate is 1,636.8 GTexel/s versus 609.1 GTexel/s, and FP32 throughput is 104.8 TFLOPS versus 19.49 TFLOPS. The FP16 figures are 104.8 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1), meaning the RTX 5090 maintains full rate without the A100's ratio penalty. The TDP difference is substantial: 575 W versus 250 W, with suggested PSU ratings of 950 W versus 600 W. Physical dimensions favor the A100 in length (267 mm versus 304 mm) and height (111 mm versus 137 mm), but the RTX 5090 adds a width specification of 40 mm that the A100 lacks. Release dates are June 2020 for the A100 and January 2025 for the RTX 5090, with the A100 marked end-of-life and the RTX 5090 active.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5090 achieves 1.79 TB/s versus the A100's 1.56 TB/s, a 14.7% advantage.

Q: Does the A100 support ray tracing?

A: No, the A100 has no listed RT cores, while the RTX 5090 includes 170 RT cores.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RTX 5090 packs 122.9 million transistors per square millimeter versus 65.6 million for the A100, due to the 5 nm process versus 7 nm.

Q: Why does the A100 have a higher percentile ranking?

A: The A100 sits at the 97th percentile among all GPUs versus the RTX 5090's 92nd percentile, likely due to its specialized server role and the benchmark set in the database, despite losing every shared test.

Q: Can the A100 output video to displays?

A: No, the A100 has no display outputs, while the RTX 5090 provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b.

Q: What is the FP16 performance ratio difference?

A: The A100 runs FP16 at a 4:1 ratio (77.97 TFLOPS), while the RTX 5090 runs it at 1:1 (104.8 TFLOPS), meaning the newer card does not sacrifice throughput for half-precision work.

# The Verdict

The data favors the RTX 5090 for essentially every measured workload. Its 46.6% OpenCL lead and 61.1% Vulkan lead are decisive, and its architectural advantages in clock speed, shading units, tensor cores, and API support make it the stronger choice for rendering, gaming, and general compute. The 5 nm process allows double the transistor density, and the 1.79 TB/s bandwidth outpaces the A100's 1.56 TB/s.

The A100 PCIe 40 GB remains relevant only for specific scenarios the database captures indirectly. Its 40 GB memory capacity exceeds the RTX 5090's 32 GB, which could matter for very large models or datasets that fit in VRAM. Its 250 W power draw is less than half the RTX 5090's 575 W, and its 8-pin EPS connector suits existing server infrastructure. The 97th percentile ranking versus 92nd suggests the A100 holds its own in the broader GPU landscape, even if it trails the newer card in direct comparison.

For buyers prioritizing raw performance, the RTX 5090 is the clear choice from the recorded data. For those needing maximum memory capacity in a power-efficient, server-compatible package, the A100 remains a viable option, especially as an end-of-life part that may be available in existing systems. The RTX 5090's active production status and newer release date further cement its position as the forward-looking pick, while the A100's legacy role in AI and HPC deployments should not be dismissed. The launch MSRP for the RTX 5090 is 1,999 USD, though the database does not provide a comparable figure for the A100.