NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 are both Ampere-architecture professional accelerators, but they are engineered for fundamentally different environments. The A100 SXM4 is a server-grade compute module designed for massive parallel throughput, while the RTX A5500 is a workstation graphics card with display outputs. The benchmark data confirms this split: the A100 leads in both recorded compute tests, but the RTX A5500 counters with a higher boost clock, a larger raw shading-unit count, and a physical form factor that fits in a conventional workstation. The analysis below breaks down where each card wins, answers common questions, and details the specification differences that drive their distinct behaviors.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB is the clear winner in raw compute throughput as measured by the synthetic benchmark suite. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A100 scores 201096 against the RTX A5500’s 174637, a lead of 15.2%. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A100 wins again with 173198 versus 155797, an 11.2% advantage. This makes the A100 the better choice for pure computational workloads that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan compute, such as scientific simulation, deep learning inference, or any task that can saturate its HBM2e memory subsystem. The data shows the A100’s average benchmark score of 187147 places it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A5500’s 165217 average sits in the 97th percentile. The A100’s wins in both head-to-head tests are decisive, and its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla V100S PCIe 32 GB, actually scores higher on average at 194415, a -3.7% deltaPct, meaning the A100 slightly trails that older card in aggregate but still wins the direct comparison against the RTX A5500.

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins in the domain of workstation flexibility and raw graphics throughput potential. The data shows it has 10240 shading units, significantly more than the A100’s 6912, and a boost clock of 1665 MHz versus the A100’s 1410 MHz. These specifications suggest the RTX A5500 is better suited for real-time rendering, viewport interactivity, and any workload that depends on high-frequency shader execution rather than memory bandwidth. The RTX A5500 also includes 80 RT cores, a feature completely absent from the A100’s entry in the fact pack, making it the only one of the two capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing. Its display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a) and dual-slot form factor mean it can drive multiple monitors, while the A100 has no display outputs and uses an SXM module slot, which requires a server chassis. For a workstation user who needs both compute and visualization, the RTX A5500 is the practical choice, despite losing the two compute benchmarks. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, scores 164894 on average, a 0.2% deltaPct, showing the RTX A5500 is essentially tied with that competitor in aggregate performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB has an average benchmark score of 187147, while the NVIDIA RTX A5500 has an average score of 165217. The A100’s score places it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the RTX A5500 sits in the 97th percentile.

Q: How large is the A100’s lead in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The A100 scores 201096 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the RTX A5500’s 174637. This represents a 15.2% advantage for the A100, which is the larger of the two head-to-head deltas.

Q: Does the RTX A5500 have any hardware feature that the A100 lacks?

A: Yes, the RTX A5500 has 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, while the A100 lists 432 tensor cores and no RT cores. The RTX A5500 also features 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, whereas the A100 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The A100 SXM4 40 GB has 40 GB of HBM2e memory with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 384-bit bus and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient according to the data?

A: The RTX A5500 has a TDP of 230 W and suggests a 550 W power supply, while the A100 has a TDP of 400 W and suggests an 800 W power supply. The RTX A5500 achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS versus the A100’s 19.49 TFLOPS, despite the lower power draw.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both cards are listed as end-of-life. The A100 was released on 2020-05-13, and the RTX A5500 was released on 2022-03-21.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the two cards is limited to two Geekbench tests, and the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A100 produces a score of 201096, while the RTX A5500 achieves 174637. The difference is 26459 points, translating to a 15.2% deltaPct in favor of the A100. This is a substantial margin, indicating the A100’s HBM2e memory bandwidth of 1.56 TB/s and its 6912 shading units are more effective in OpenCL compute than the RTX A5500’s higher clock speed and larger shader count. The A100’s memory bandwidth is more than double the RTX A5500’s 768.0 GB/s, which likely explains the gap in memory-intensive compute tasks.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A100 again comes out ahead with a score of 173198 versus the RTX A5500’s 155797. The delta is 17401 points, or 11.2%. While the A100’s lead narrows in Vulkan compared to OpenCL, it remains significant. The RTX A5500’s higher boost clock of 1665 MHz and its 10240 shading units help it close some of the gap, but the A100’s superior memory subsystem and tensor core count (432 versus 320) still carry the day. Across both tests, the A100 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head matchups, while the RTX A5500 wins none. The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend, with the A100 at 187147 and the RTX A5500 at 165217, a difference of 21930 points. This data clearly shows that for pure compute performance, the A100 is the stronger card, but the RTX A5500’s architectural advantages in shading units and clock speed suggest it may be more competitive in graphics-oriented tasks that are not captured by these two tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category, starting with their process nodes. The A100 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX A5500 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung. This translates to a significant difference in transistor density: the A100 packs 54,200 million transistors into an 826 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.6M / mm², while the RTX A5500 has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, for a density of 45.1M / mm². The A100’s larger die and higher density explain its higher transistor count and superior memory bandwidth.

Clock speeds also diverge markedly. The A100 has a base clock of 1095 MHz and a boost clock of 1410 MHz, while the RTX A5500 starts at 1080 MHz and boosts to 1665 MHz. The RTX A5500’s 255 MHz higher boost clock is a key factor in its higher FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS versus the A100’s 19.49 TFLOPS. However, the A100’s FP16 performance is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1), while the RTX A5500’s FP16 is 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1), showing the A100’s advantage in mixed-precision compute.

Memory is another major differentiator. The A100 uses 40 GB of HBM2e with a 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A5500 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A100’s memory bandwidth is exactly double that of the RTX A5500, which is crucial for large datasets. The A100 has 6912 shading units, 432 TMUs, and 160 ROPs, while the RTX A5500 has 10240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The RTX A5500 has more shading units but fewer TMUs and ROPs, reflecting its focus on shader-heavy workloads.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The A100 has a TDP of 400 W and requires an 800 W suggested power supply, while the RTX A5500 has a TDP of 230 W and a 550 W suggested power supply. The A100 uses an SXM module slot with no power connectors, while the RTX A5500 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin connector. The RTX A5500 measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the A100 has no listed dimensions. The A100 has no display outputs, while the RTX A5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, but they use different chips and target different segments. The A100 SXM4 40 GB uses the GA100 chip, which is designed for server and data center applications, as indicated by its generation label “Server Ampere (Axx)”. The RTX A5500 uses the GA102 chip, which is part of the “Workstation Ampere (Ax000)” generation. This architectural split explains the core feature differences: the A100 is optimized for compute density and memory bandwidth, while the RTX A5500 is optimized for graphics throughput and workstation flexibility.

The A100 has 432 tensor cores, while the RTX A5500 has 320. The A100 does not list any RT cores, whereas the RTX A5500 includes 80 RT cores. This is a critical distinction, as the RTX A5500 is capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature the A100 lacks entirely. The A100’s tensor core count is higher, but the RTX A5500’s RT cores make it more versatile for real-time rendering and visualization workloads. The A100’s FP16 performance is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1), indicating it can leverage tensor cores for accelerated mixed-precision compute, while the RTX A5500’s FP16 is 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1), meaning it does not have the same 4:1 acceleration ratio.

The process node difference (7 nm TSMC for the A100 versus 8 nm Samsung for the RTX A5500) contributes to the A100’s higher transistor density and larger die, but also to its higher TDP. The A100’s memory type, HBM2e, is a stacked memory design that allows for the 5120-bit bus and 1.56 TB/s bandwidth, while the RTX A5500 uses GDDR6, which is more common in graphics cards and easier to integrate into a dual-slot form factor. The API support also differs: the RTX A5500 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the A100 has no listed API support, reinforcing that it is not intended for graphics rendering. The A100’s predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada, while the RTX A5500’s predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada, further confirming their distinct product lines.