NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark tells a clear story. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti scores 215,633 against 183,725 for the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB. That is a 14.8% advantage for the RTX 3090 Ti, making it the outright winner in the only directly comparable workload in the data. The A100 trails by a significant margin in this API-based test, which favors the consumer card’s higher shading-unit count and boost clocks.

Context from the nearest-rival comparisons reinforces the divide. The A100 SXM4 80 GB sits at the 98th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 183,725. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation at 184,664, which beats it by 0.5%, while the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell trails by 0.9% and the A100 SXM4 40 GB leads by 1.8%. The RTX 3090 Ti, by contrast, holds the 95th percentile with an average score of 131,938—but that average is dragged down by its additional benchmark entries, including a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 5,741 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 174,441. The Vulkan result is where the 3090 Ti shines brightest, and it is the only test where both cards appear.

The delta of -14.8% for the A100 in Vulkan is substantial, but it does not tell the whole story. The A100’s average benchmark score (183,725) is actually 39.2% higher than the 3090 Ti’s average (131,938) when all recorded tests are considered. That discrepancy stems from the 3090 Ti’s inclusion of the low Steel Nomad score, which is a DX12 workload that likely stresses different subsystems. In pure Vulkan compute and graphics, the 3090 Ti is clearly ahead, but the A100’s single-test profile makes cross-card averages tricky to interpret.

Looking at the rival sets, the A100’s nearest competitors are all professional or server-grade parts. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is essentially a dead heat (0.5% delta), and the A100 SXM4 40 GB—a sibling with less memory—outperforms the 80 GB version by 1.8%. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell and RTX 4090 D trail by 0.9% and 3.2%, respectively. For the 3090 Ti, the rival field is more mixed: the NVIDIA L4 is nearly identical (0.7% delta), while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation, A10M, and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 all sit within 2.6% of its average. This suggests the 3090 Ti’s average score is more representative of a mid-range workstation tier, whereas the A100 punches well above that in its niche.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti beats the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 215,633 versus 183,725, a 14.8% advantage.

Q: How does the A100 SXM4 80 GB compare to its closest rival?

A: The A100’s average score of 183,725 is 0.5% lower than the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation’s 184,664, making the RTX 5000 the narrow leader in that comparison.

Q: What is the RTX 3090 Ti’s percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti sits at the 95th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 131,938 across three recorded tests.

Q: Does the A100 have a higher average score despite losing the Vulkan test?

A: Yes. The A100’s average benchmark score is 183,725, which is 39.2% higher than the 3090 Ti’s 131,938, because the 3090 Ti’s average includes a much lower 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 5,741.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 3090 Ti boosts to 1860 MHz, while the A100 SXM4 80 GB boosts to 1410 MHz, a difference of 450 MHz in favor of the consumer card.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both the A100 SXM4 80 GB and the RTX 3090 Ti are marked as end-of-life in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share the Ampere architecture but diverge sharply in implementation. The A100 SXM4 80 GB uses the GA100 chip built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, packing 54,200 million transistors into an 826 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 65.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3090 Ti uses the GA102 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm node, with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die—a density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The A100’s smaller node and larger die give it a 91.5% transistor count advantage, but the 3090 Ti compensates with higher clocks.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The A100 carries 80 GB of HBM2e across a 5120-bit bus, delivering 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth. The 3090 Ti has 24 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, with 1.01 TB/s. The A100’s bandwidth is more than double, and its memory capacity is over three times larger. However, the 3090 Ti’s GDDR6X runs at 21 Gbps effective, compared to the A100’s 3.2 Gbps effective HBM2e, though the A100’s wider bus more than compensates.

Compute resources tell a mixed story. The 3090 Ti has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, versus the A100’s 6,912 shading units, 432 TMUs, and 160 ROPs. The 3090 Ti has 55.6% more shaders but 28.6% fewer TMUs and 42.9% fewer ROPs. In FP32, the 3090 Ti hits 40.00 TFLOPS, more than double the A100’s 19.49 TFLOPS. But in FP16, the A100 reaches 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1 ratio) versus the 3090 Ti’s 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1), meaning the A100 is nearly 95% faster in half-precision throughput. The A100 also has 432 tensor cores; the 3090 Ti has 336, plus 84 RT cores that the A100 lacks entirely.

The A100’s texture rate is 609.1 GTexel/s versus 625.0 GTexel/s for the 3090 Ti, a near tie, while the A100 leads pixel rate at 225.6 GPixel/s versus 208.3 GPixel/s. Power envelopes differ: the A100 is rated at 400 W TDP with an 800 W suggested PSU, while the 3090 Ti draws 450 W with an 850 W suggested PSU. The A100 is an OAM module with no display outputs and no power connectors (relying on the host board), whereas the 3090 Ti is a triple-slot card with a 16-pin connector and full display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a). The A100 supports no exposed graphics APIs in the data; the 3090 Ti lists DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different tools. For raw graphics and consumer-facing workloads, the RTX 3090 Ti is the clear pick: it wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 14.8% and offers far higher FP32 performance (40.00 TFLOPS versus 19.49 TFLOPS). It also provides display outputs, RT cores, and a full API stack, making it a functional gaming or workstation card. Its 95th-percentile ranking and close rivalry with professional parts like the RTX 4000 Ada Generation suggest it holds its own in mixed-use scenarios.

The A100 SXM4 80 GB, however, is engineered for a different arena. Its 80 GB of HBM2e with 2.04 TB/s bandwidth and 77.97 TFLOPS FP16 throughput make it a compute monster, despite losing the Vulkan test. Its 98th-percentile standing and rival set—dominated by server and pro cards like the RTX 5000 Ada and A100 SXM4 40 GB—indicate it targets AI training, scientific simulation, and data-center deployments where memory capacity and half-precision speed matter more than graphics output. The 39.2% higher average benchmark score versus the 3090 Ti underscores that in aggregate workloads, the A100 is the stronger performer.

Choose the RTX 3090 Ti if you need a consumer-oriented card with display outputs, high FP32 throughput, and superior Vulkan performance. Choose the A100 SXM4 80 GB if your priority is massive memory, extreme bandwidth, FP16 compute, and a professional form factor—and if you can work around having no video outputs and a 400 W TDP that requires a server platform.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti |

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

| Chip | GA100 | GA102 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

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

| Die Size | 826 mm² | 628 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1275 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1410 MHz | 1860 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1593 MHz / 3.2 Gbps effective | 1313 MHz / 21 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 80 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2e | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus | 5120 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 2.04 TB/s | 1.01 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 6912 | 10752 |

| TMUs | 432 | 336 |

| ROPs | 160 | 112 |

| RT Cores | None | 84 |

| Tensor Cores | 432 | 336 |

| Pixel Rate | 225.6 GPixel/s | 208.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 609.1 GTexel/s | 625.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 19.49 TFLOPS | 40.00 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) | 40.00 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 400 W | 450 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 800 W | 850 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL Support | None listed | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | None listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 336 mm x 140 mm x 61 mm |

| Release Date | 2020-11-15 | 2022-01-26 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 1,999 USD |

| Predecessor | Tesla Turing | GeForce 20 |

| Successor | Server Ada | GeForce 40 |