NVIDIA A10G vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

NVIDIA’s Ampere generation produced a wide spread of GA102 variants, and the RTX A5500 and A10G are two of the more interesting ones. Both are end-of-life, both use the same 8 nm Samsung process with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, and both share the same 24 GB GDDR6 memory configuration on a 384-bit bus. But they are built for different worlds: the A5500 is a dual-slot workstation card with display outputs, while the A10G is a single-slot server accelerator with no video outputs. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the margin is not uniform across tests, and the use-case split matters more than the raw scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX A5500 wins both recorded benchmark tests, but by different margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A5500 scores 174,637 against the A10G’s 158,063. That is a 10.5% lead, which is a substantial gap in raw compute workloads. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A5500 scores 155,797 versus the A10G’s 145,863, a 6.8% advantage. The delta between the two tests is telling: the OpenCL gap is roughly half again larger than the Vulkan gap, which suggests the A5500’s advantage grows in compute-oriented APIs that stress raw shading throughput.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the A5500 sits at 165,217, while the A10G sits at 151,963. That is an 8.7% overall gap. Both cards occupy the 97th percentile among all GPUs, so they are both high-end parts, but the A5500 is clearly the stronger of the two in these synthetic tests.

The A10G’s closest rival in the data is the Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB, which scores 150,305 on average. The A10G beats that by 1.1%. The A5500, meanwhile, sits between the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, which is 0.5% ahead of the A5500) and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894, which is 0.2% behind). The A5500 also leads the A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.7% in average score, which is notable since the A100 is a much more expensive data-center part. The A10G, by contrast, trails the A100 by 6.5% in average score.

The individual benchmark deltas reinforce the pattern. In OpenCL, the A5500’s 10.5% lead over the A10G is larger than the A5500’s 0.2% edge over the W7800 and its 1.7% edge over the A100. In Vulkan, the A5500’s 6.8% lead over the A10G is still substantial, but it is closer to the A5500’s 2% deficit against the Radeon Pro W6900X (168,574 average). The A10G’s Vulkan score of 145,863 is also 5.4% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X (160,671 average), which shows that the A10G is mid-pack among high-end accelerators rather than at the top.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX A5500 wins every benchmark recorded, with a 10.5% lead in OpenCL and a 6.8% lead in Vulkan. If you are choosing purely on compute performance as measured by Geekbench, the A5500 is the better card. It also has a higher average benchmark score (165,217 vs 151,963) and sits in the same 97th percentile, so you are not giving up any performance tier by picking it.

Who should pick the A5500? Anyone who needs a workstation card with display outputs, since the A10G has none. The A5500 supports 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, which makes it usable in a desktop workstation environment where you need to drive monitors. The A10G is a headless server card, so it requires a separate GPU for display or a remote management setup.

Who should pick the A10G? The data shows it is slower in both tests, but it draws significantly less power. The A10G has a 150 W TDP versus the A5500’s 230 W. That is a 34.8% power reduction for an 8.7% average performance loss. In a dense server environment where power and cooling are constrained, the A10G may be the practical choice despite lower scores. It is also single-slot, which allows more cards per chassis, whereas the A5500 is dual-slot.

The A10G also has a higher base clock (1320 MHz vs 1080 MHz) and boost clock (1710 MHz vs 1665 MHz), but that does not translate into better benchmark results. The A5500 compensates with more shading units (10,240 vs 9,216), more TMUs (320 vs 288), more RT cores (80 vs 72), and more tensor cores (320 vs 288). The A5500’s memory clock is also higher at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), which yields 768.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 600.2 GB/s. Those spec advantages show up directly in the benchmark deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 wins in raw compute performance across both recorded tests. Its OpenCL advantage is 10.5%, which is the largest margin in the head-to-head data. This suggests it is better suited for OpenCL-heavy workloads such as general-purpose GPU compute, scientific simulation, or rendering tasks that rely on that API. Its Vulkan lead of 6.8% is smaller but still decisive, so it also wins in Vulkan-based rendering or compute scenarios.

The A10G wins in power efficiency and physical density. At 150 W TDP, it consumes 34.8% less power than the A5500’s 230 W. It also requires a 450 W suggested PSU versus 550 W for the A5500. In a multi-GPU server, that power difference adds up quickly, and the single-slot design means you can fit more A10Gs in the same chassis space. The A10G also has a higher boost clock (1710 MHz vs 1665 MHz), but that does not overcome the A5500’s larger shader array in the benchmarks.

For memory bandwidth, the A5500 wins decisively. Its 768.0 GB/s is 27.9% higher than the A10G’s 600.2 GB/s. That matters for memory-bound workloads, even if the benchmark tests do not isolate that specific metric. The A5500 also has higher pixel rate (159.8 GPixel/s vs 164.2 GPixel/s actually favors the A10G slightly) and texture rate (532.8 GTexel/s vs 492.5 GTexel/s favors the A5500). Wait, the pixel rate figures are 159.8 GPixel/s for the A5500 and 164.2 GPixel/s for the A10G, so the A10G is actually 2.8% ahead in pixel throughput. That is a narrow A10G win in one specific spec, but it does not show up in the benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX A5500. It scores 174,637 in OpenCL and 155,797 in Vulkan, versus the A10G’s 158,063 and 145,863, respectively. That is a 10.5% lead in OpenCL and a 6.8% lead in Vulkan.

Q: Are they the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the GA102 chip on the Ampere architecture, built on Samsung’s 8 nm process. Both have 28,300 million transistors and a 628 mm² die. The difference is in the enabled compute units and clocks.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A5500. It has 768.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the A10G’s 600.2 GB/s. Both have 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, but the A5500’s memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the A10G’s 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The A10G. It has a 150 W TDP and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the RTX A5500 has a 230 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. The A10G also uses a single-slot design with an 8-pin EPS connector, while the A5500 is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin connector.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: Only the RTX A5500. It has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A10G has no display outputs, making it a headless server accelerator.

Q: How do they compare to the A100 PCIe 40 GB?

A: The RTX A5500 has an average benchmark score of 165,217, which is 1.7% ahead of the A100 PCIe 40 GB’s 162,504. The A10G’s average score of 151,963 is 6.5% behind the same A100.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same GA102 chip with the Ampere architecture, so the fundamental architecture is identical. They share the same 8 nm Samsung process, 28,300 million transistors, and 628 mm² die. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The key architectural difference is in the number of enabled execution units. The RTX A5500 has 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The A10G has 9,216 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. That is 10% fewer shading units and 10% fewer TMUs on the A10G, while ROPs are identical. The RT core counts follow the same pattern: 80 on the A5500 versus 72 on the A10G, an 11.1% difference. Tensor cores are 320 versus 288, also a 10% difference.

The memory subsystem is architecturally the same width (384-bit) and same capacity (24 GB GDDR6), but the clock speeds differ. The A5500 runs memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the A10G’s 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). This yields 768.0 GB/s versus 600.2 GB/s bandwidth. The A5500’s FP32 and FP16 throughput are both 34.10 TFLOPS, while the A10G’s are both 31.52 TFLOPS. The generation labels differ: the A5500 is in the “Workstation Ampere (Ax000)” generation, while the A10G is in the “Server Ampere (Axx)” generation.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications, all directly from the data:

• Shading units: 10,240 on the A5500 vs 9,216 on the A10G.
• TMUs: 320 on the A5500 vs 288 on the A10G.
• RT cores: 80 on the A5500 vs 72 on the A10G.
• Tensor cores: 320 on the A5500 vs 288 on the A10G.
• Base clock: 1080 MHz on the A5500 vs 1320 MHz on the A10G.
• Boost clock: 1665 MHz on the A5500 vs 1710 MHz on the A10G.
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on the A5500 vs 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) on the A10G.
• Memory bandwidth: 768.0 GB/s on the A5500 vs 600.2 GB/s on the A10G.
• FP32/FP16: 34.10 TFLOPS on the A5500 vs 31.52 TFLOPS on the A10G.
• Pixel rate: 159.8 GPixel/s on the A5500 vs 164.2 GPixel/s on the A10G.
• Texture rate: 532.8 GTexel/s on the A5500 vs 492.5 GTexel/s on the A10G.
• TDP: 230 W on the A5500 vs 150 W on the A10G.
• Slot width: Dual-slot on the A5500 vs single-slot on the A10G.
• Power connector: 1x 8-pin on the A5500 vs 8-pin EPS on the A10G.
• Suggested PSU: 550 W on the A5500 vs 450 W on the A10G.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the A5500 vs no outputs on the A10G.
• Release date: 2022-03-21 for the A5500 vs 2021-04-11 for the A10G.
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing for the A5500 vs Tesla Turing for the A10G.
• Successor: Workstation Ada for the A5500 vs Server Ada for the A10G.

The A10G has higher clocks and a lower TDP, but the A5500 compensates with more execution units and faster memory. The net result in the benchmarks is a decisive win for the A5500, though the A10G’s power and density advantages make it a legitimate choice for specific server deployments.