NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 are both Ampere-generation accelerators, but they target fundamentally different corners of the professional market. The data shows a split personality: one is a purpose-built compute monster with a massive memory pool, while the other is a flexible workstation workhorse with display outputs and a significantly higher raw FP32 throughput. The benchmark data, while limited to a single shared test, reveals a clear hierarchy in raw graphics performance, but the specification sheet tells a richer story about where each card is meant to live.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB is the undisputed winner in the field of memory capacity and bandwidth, which are critical for large-scale compute workloads. With 80 GB of HBM2e memory and a staggering 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth, it is built to hold massive datasets, models, and matrices that would never fit in the RTX A5500’s 24 GB GDDR6 frame buffer. It also holds a decisive edge in the shared Vulkan benchmark, scoring 183,725 versus the RTX A5500’s 155,797, a 17.9% advantage. Its architecture is further specialized with 432 dedicated tensor cores, making it the obvious choice for AI training and inference tasks where raw FP16 throughput (77.97 TFLOPS with 4:1 ratio) is paramount. It operates on a 7 nm TSMC process with a massive 826 mm² die, packing 54,200 million transistors, which explains its 400 W TDP and OAM module form factor—it is a server rack component designed for density, not a desktop card.

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 wins in the categories that matter for interactive and traditional workstation tasks. Its FP32 performance is a clear differentiator: 34.10 TFLOPS versus the A100’s 19.49 TFLOPS, representing a 74.9% advantage in single-precision compute. This makes it the stronger choice for simulation, rendering, and scientific computing that relies on FP32. It also features 80 dedicated RT cores, a capability entirely absent from the A100 SXM4, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing for visualization and DCC workloads. It is the only one of the two with display outputs—4x DisplayPort 1.4a—and a full API stack including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, meaning it can drive monitors and run modern graphics applications natively. Its 230 W TDP and dual-slot design with a single 8-pin connector make it far easier to integrate into a workstation chassis, and its 10,240 shading units give it a theoretical pixel-pushing advantage in geometry-heavy scenes.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB is faster, scoring 183,725 against the RTX A5500’s 155,797, a difference of 17.9%.

Q: Does the RTX A5500 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX A5500 is equipped with 80 RT cores. The A100 SXM4 80 GB has no listed RT core count, indicating it lacks this dedicated hardware.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB has vastly more, with 2.04 TB/s of bandwidth from HBM2e memory, compared to the RTX A5500’s 768.0 GB/s from GDDR6.

Q: Can the A100 SXM4 80 GB be used to drive a display?

A: No, the A100 SXM4 80 GB lists "No outputs" for display connections, while the RTX A5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which card is better for FP32 compute workloads?

A: The RTX A5500 is significantly better, delivering 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the A100 SXM4 80 GB’s 19.49 TFLOPS.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The A100 SXM4 80 GB has a higher density at 65.6M transistors per mm², thanks to its 7 nm TSMC process, whereas the RTX A5500’s 8 nm Samsung process yields 45.1M per mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark test between the two is Geekbench Vulkan, and it provides a clear, if narrow, view of relative graphics performance. The A100 SXM4 80 GB scores 183,725 points, while the RTX A5500 trails at 155,797 points. This results in a 17.9% victory for the A100, a significant margin that is somewhat counterintuitive given the A5500’s higher shading unit count and FP32 throughput. This suggests that the Vulkan test is highly sensitive to memory bandwidth and capacity, where the A100’s HBM2e implementation (2.04 TB/s) dwarfs the A5500’s GDDR6 (768.0 GB/s). The A100’s massive 5120-bit bus width, versus the A5500’s 384-bit bus, allows it to feed data to the GPU cores at a rate the A5500 cannot match, leading to higher sustained performance in memory-bound graphics workloads. However, it is crucial to note that the A100 has no display outputs and is not designed for real-time graphics; this benchmark win does not translate to a recommendation for desktop use.

The absence of a shared OpenCL benchmark is notable. The RTX A5500 posts a Geekbench OpenCL score of 174,637, which is higher than its Vulkan score, but without a comparable result from the A100, a direct comparison in that API is impossible from this data. The A100’s single benchmark result (Vulkan) is its only data point, making its average benchmark score identical at 183,725. The A5500’s average benchmark score, calculated across both its OpenCL and Vulkan runs, is 165,217. This aggregate figure places the A5500 at the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the A100 sits at the 98th percentile. Looking at their nearest rivals, the A100’s closest competitor is the RTX 5000 Ada Generation, which scores 184,664, a mere 0.5% higher; the A100 also edges out the RTX 4090 D by 3.2%. The A5500’s closest rival is the RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094, only 0.5% higher, while it leads the A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.7% and trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X by 2%. These percentile and rival placements confirm both cards are top-tier performers, but they operate in different performance strata relative to their respective peers.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on almost every core specification. The A100 SXM4 uses a GA100 chip, while the RTX A5500 uses a GA102 chip. The A100 is built on a 7 nm TSMC process, whereas the A5500 uses an 8 nm Samsung process. This leads to a major transistor count difference: 54,200 million on the A100 versus 28,300 million on the A5500, with die sizes of 826 mm² and 628 mm², respectively. Memory is another chasm: the A100 offers 80 GB of HBM2e on a 5120-bit bus, while the A5500 offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth is 2.04 TB/s versus 768.0 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ, with the A100 running at a 1275 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost, while the A5500 runs at 1080 MHz base and a much higher 1665 MHz boost. The A5500 has more shading units (10,240 vs. 6,912) and more TMUs (320 vs. 432, with the A100 having more) but fewer ROPs (96 vs. 160). The A100 has 432 tensor cores, while the A5500 has 320. Crucially, the A5500 has 80 RT cores, and the A100 has zero listed. FP32 output is 19.49 TFLOPS on the A100 versus 34.10 TFLOPS on the A5500. FP16 output is 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) on the A100 versus 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) on the A5500. Power draw is 400 W for the A100 and 230 W for the A5500. The A100 is an OAM Module with no power connectors, while the A5500 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin connector. The A100 has no display outputs, while the A5500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Ampere architecture, but they are not the same implementation. The A100 SXM4 80 GB is part of NVIDIA’s Server Ampere generation, designed for data centers and high-performance computing. Its GA100 chip is a compute-first design, prioritizing memory bandwidth and tensor performance over traditional graphics features. This is evidenced by the absence of RT cores and display outputs. The A5500, on the other hand, is from the Workstation Ampere generation, with a GA102 chip that is a more balanced design, retaining full graphics and display capabilities. The process node difference is significant: the A100’s 7 nm TSMC process allows for a transistor density of 65.6M / mm², versus 45.1M / mm² on the A5500’s 8 nm Samsung process. This explains how the A100 packs nearly double the transistors (54,200 million vs. 28,300 million) into a larger die. The A100’s FP16 performance is quadruple its FP32 performance (77.97 vs. 19.49 TFLOPS), indicating a 4:1 ratio that is a hallmark of compute-optimized Ampere parts, whereas the A5500 has a 1:1 ratio (34.10 TFLOPS in both), which is typical for graphics-oriented GPUs. The memory subsystems are completely different: HBM2e is a stacked, high-bandwidth memory designed for massive data throughput, while GDDR6 is a more conventional graphics memory that prioritizes lower latency and ease of implementation. The A5500’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 confirms its role as a full-featured graphics card, while the A100 has no listed API support, reinforcing its status as a pure compute accelerator.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards is not about which is "better" but about which is appropriate for the task. For anyone building or deploying a server for AI training, deep learning inference, or large-scale scientific simulation, the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB is the clear selection. Its 80 GB of HBM2e memory and 2.04 TB/s bandwidth are non-negotiable for holding large models, and its 432 tensor cores deliver 77.97 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which is 128% higher than the A5500’s FP16 output. Its 17.9% win in the shared Vulkan benchmark, while not its primary use case, indicates superior memory-bound compute throughput. Its 98th percentile ranking and proximity to the RTX 5000 Ada Generation (0.5% lower) show it remains a top-tier compute part even against newer hardware.

For a professional workstation used for 3D rendering, CAD, video editing, or any task requiring a display, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the logical pick. It offers 74.9% higher FP32 performance (34.10 vs. 19.49 TFLOPS), which is directly relevant to simulation and graphics workloads. It is the only card with RT cores, enabling hardware ray tracing, and its 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs mean it can drive a multi-monitor setup directly. Its lower 230 W TDP and dual-slot form factor make it far more practical for a desktop chassis than the A100’s OAM module. The A5500’s 97th percentile ranking and 0.2% lead over the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 show it is highly competitive in its class. In short, the data indicates that the A100 is a specialized tool for data centers, while the A5500 is a versatile workhorse for the desktop.