NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two Ampere-generation cards split their two head-to-head benchmark wins exactly, with each taking one test by a decisive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB posts a score of 178,627 against the RTX A5500's 174,637, a 2.2% advantage for the server-oriented card. That is a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput, but not a landslide — the A5500 stays within striking distance despite its workstation positioning. The Vulkan test flips the script entirely. There, the RTX A5500 scores 155,797 versus the A100's 146,380, giving the workstation card a 6.4% lead. That is the largest single-test delta between the two, and it highlights a clear divergence in graphics API performance that the raw compute numbers do not predict.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX A5500's average benchmark score of 165,217 edges out the A100's 162,504 by 1.7%. That puts the A5500 in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, matching the A100's percentile ranking. The A5500's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 at 164,894 (a 0.2% difference) and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094 (where the A5500 trails by 0.5%). The A100's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X at 160,671 (1.1% ahead), with the RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094 representing a 2.2% gap in that card's favor. The head-to-head split means neither card dominates the other in aggregate; the A5500's lead in the average is built on the strength of its Vulkan showing, while the A100 counters in OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, but they are radically different implementations of it. The RTX A5500 uses the GA102 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The A100 PCIe 40 GB, in contrast, uses the GA100 chip on TSMC's 7 nm node, packing 54,200 million transistors into an 826 mm² die — a density of 65.6 million per square millimeter. The A100's larger, denser die reflects its server-class design goals, while the A5500's smaller chip is tuned for workstation graphics workloads.

The memory subsystems could hardly be more different. The A5500 comes with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A100 offers 40 GB of HBM2e on a massive 5120-bit bus, pushing 1.56 TB/s — more than double the bandwidth of the A5500. That memory advantage is a core differentiator for the A100, which needs the throughput for data-center scale compute. The A5500 compensates with higher clocks: its base is 1080 MHz and boost reaches 1665 MHz, while the A100 runs at 765 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost. The A5500's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the A100's 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective), though the A100's wider bus makes raw bandwidth comparisons moot.

Compute resources tell a more complex story. The A5500 packs 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, plus 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The A100 has fewer shading units at 6,912 but more TMUs (432) and ROPs (160), and it carries 432 tensor cores with no RT cores at all. That absence of RT cores reflects the A100's compute-first mission — it is not designed for real-time ray tracing. The A5500's FP32 performance is 34.10 TFLOPS, well ahead of the A100's 19.49 TFLOPS. But in FP16, the A100 leaps ahead with 77.97 TFLOPS (at a 4:1 ratio), while the A5500 manages 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1). The A100's tensor core count and FP16 throughput make it the clear choice for AI training and inference workloads.

Power and connectivity differ as well. The A5500 draws 230 W and uses a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The A100 is rated at 250 W and requires an 8-pin EPS connector, with a 600 W suggested PSU. Both are dual-slot cards, and both measure 267 mm in length, with the A5500 at 112 mm height and the A100 at 111 mm. The A5500 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the A100 has no display outputs whatsoever — it is a compute accelerator, not a graphics card. The A5500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the A100 lists no graphics API support.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 is the workstation graphics card, and the data confirms it. Its Vulkan win of 6.4% over the A100, combined with its 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, makes it the better choice for real-time rendering, CAD, and visualization workloads. The presence of 80 RT cores means it can handle ray-traced scenes, something the A100 cannot attempt. The 24 GB of GDDR6 is ample for large textures and complex scenes, and the four DisplayPort outputs allow multi-monitor setups directly from the card. Its 97th percentile ranking and 165,217 average score place it among the top workstation GPUs, trading blows with the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation.

The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB wins where compute density matters most. Its 1.56 TB/s memory bandwidth is more than double the A5500's, and its FP16 output of 77.97 TFLOPS dwarfs the A5500's 34.10 TFLOPS. The 40 GB of HBM2e memory is a significant capacity advantage for large model training and inference batches. The A100's OpenCL win of 2.2% over the A5500 underscores its raw compute edge in that API. It has 432 tensor cores versus the A5500's 320, making it the stronger candidate for AI and deep learning tasks. The lack of display outputs is irrelevant in a server context, where the card sits in a rack and communicates over PCIe 4.0 x16.

The split benchmark results suggest a clean division of labor. For interactive graphics, visualization, and any workload that touches Vulkan or DirectX, the A5500 is the pick. For batch compute, AI training, and memory-bandwidth-hungry scientific workloads, the A100 is the pick. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the A5500's 165,217 edges out the A100's 162,504, but that 1.7% aggregate difference masks the fact that each card dominates in its own domain.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB manages 19.49 TFLOPS — a 14.61 TFLOPS advantage for the A5500.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The A100 PCIe 40 GB offers 1.56 TB/s of bandwidth from its 5120-bit HBM2e interface, versus the A5500's 768.0 GB/s from a 384-bit GDDR6 bus. The A100 has roughly double the bandwidth.

Q: Can the A100 PCIe 40 GB output video to a display?

A: No. The A100 has no display outputs at all, while the RTX A5500 includes four DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

Q: Which card is better for ray tracing?

A: The RTX A5500 is the only one of the two with RT cores (80 of them). The A100 PCIe 40 GB has no RT cores listed, making it unsuitable for hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The RTX A5500 scores 155,797, which is 6.4% higher than the A100's 146,380. That is the largest benchmark delta between the two cards.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The A5500's GA102 chip has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, while the A100's GA100 chip has 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A5500 | NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB |

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

| Chip | GA102 | GA100 |

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

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 54,200 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 826 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 65.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 765 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1410 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 40 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2e |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 5120 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 1.56 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 10240 | 6912 |

| TMUs | 320 | 432 |

| ROPs | 96 | 160 |

| RT Cores | 80 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | 432 |

| Pixel Rate | 159.8 GPixel/s | 225.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 532.8 GTexel/s | 609.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 34.10 TFLOPS | 19.49 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) | 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | None |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | None |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | None |

| Height | 112 mm | 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | 2020-06-21 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Tesla Turing |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Server Ada |

| Generation | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) | Server Ampere (Axx) |