NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data offers a clear, if narrow, picture of these two Ampere-based NVIDIA cards. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 wins the only directly comparable test in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. In that test, the A4500 scores 141837 against the A10M's 135230, a margin of 4.7%. This is the sole head-to-head result available, so the A4500 holds a perfect 1-0 record over the A10M.

The A10M's case does not rest on winning a benchmark; it rests on positioning. The A10M is part of the Server Ampere generation, while the A4500 belongs to Workstation Ampere. The A10M has no display outputs, which makes it a compute-only accelerator intended for server racks. The A4500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a workstation card that can drive monitors. The data suggests a use-case split: the A10M for headless compute density, the A4500 for interactive workstation tasks where display output matters.

In terms of overall standing, the A10M sits at the 96th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the A4500 sits at the 93rd percentile. That 3-point percentile gap is notable given the A4500's higher OpenCL score. The explanation lies in the differing benchmark sets. The A10M's average benchmark score is 135230, based solely on its Geekbench OpenCL result. The A4500's average is 91671, pulled down by its additional benchmarks: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3196 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 129980. The A4500 is tested across more workloads, and its average reflects a mix of compute and graphics tasks.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The A10M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at a 0% delta, meaning they score nearly identically in OpenCL. The A4500's nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at a 0.6% delta. These rivalries suggest each card competes in its own tier: the A10M against modern Ada-generation server cards, the A4500 against mobile workstation variants and older high-end cards like the Quadro GP100.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 141837, while the NVIDIA A10M scores 135230. The A4500 leads by 4.7% in this test.

Q: Do both cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes. Both use the GA102 chip with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, built on Samsung's 8 nm process with a transistor density of 45.1M per mm².

Q: How much memory does each card have, and is the bandwidth the same?

A: Both have 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus. The A10M has a memory bandwidth of 500.2 GB/s, while the A4500 has 640.0 GB/s due to faster memory clocks.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: Only the RTX A4500 can. It has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A10M has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for direct monitor connection.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The A10M has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W, using an 8-pin EPS connector. The A4500 has a TDP of 200 W, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The A10M ranks at the 96th percentile, while the A4500 ranks at the 93rd percentile. This reflects the different benchmark sets each card was tested with, not just raw compute speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 wins with a score of 141837, against the A10M's 135230. The delta is -4.7% from the A10M's perspective, meaning the A4500 outperforms it by nearly five percentage points. This is a meaningful margin in compute workloads that stress raw OpenCL performance.

Beyond that single test, the A4500 has additional benchmark results that the A4500 wins by default because the A10M was not tested in those workloads. The A4500's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 3196. In Vulkan, the A4500 reaches 129980. Neither of these tests appear in the A10M's benchmark list at all, so the A4500's 1-0 record in head-to-head tests understates its broader testing coverage. The A4500 was tested in three different APIs (OpenCL, Vulkan, and DX12, the A4500's 3DMark result) or at least two. The A10M was tested only in Geekbench OpenCL.

The texture rate data shows a small edge for the A4500: 369.6 GTexel/s versus the A10M's 366.2 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors the A4500 more clearly, 158.4 GPixel/s against 130. In FP32 compute, the A4500 edges ahead at 23.65 TFLOPS versus 23.44 TFLOPS (this is a tight margin of roughly 1%). The A4500 wins every metric where both cards have recorded numbers, but the differences vary from negligible to significant.

Specification Differences

The two cards share a great deal: both are GA102 chips with 7168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. Both are 267 mm long and 112 mm tall. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are end-of-life products. The differences emerge in specific fields.

Clock speeds differ. The A10M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of 1635 MHz. The A4500 runs at 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, a bit faster in both states. Memory clocks diverge more sharply: the A10M runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the A4500 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). This memory clock difference drives the bandwidth gap: 500.2 GB/s for the A10M versus 640.0 GB/s for the A4500, a 28% advantage for the A4500.

ROPs also differ. The A10M has 80 ROPs; the A4500 has 96. This helps explain the pixel rate gap (130.8 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s). Power and cooling differ: the A10M is rated at 150 W TDP with a single-slot cooler and an 8-pin EPS connector, while the A4500 is rated at 200 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, and takes a single 8-pin connector. Suggested PSU scales accordingly: 450 W for the A10M, 550 W for the A4500.

Display outputs are a major differentiator. The A10M has none, reinforcing its server role. The A4500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The A10M has no release date in the database, while the A4500 was released on November 22, 2021. The A10M's generation is listed as "Server Ampere (Axx)", while the A4500's is "Workstation Ampere (Ax000)". The A10M's predecessors and successor are listed as Tesla Turing and Server Ada, respectively. The A4500 follows Quadro Turing and leads to Workstation Ada.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Ampere architecture, so the core architecture is identical. The GA102 chip is the same physical die: 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² area, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The transistor density of 45.1M per mm² is the same for both. The RT core count (56) and tensor core count (224) are identical. Shading units and TMUs match exactly.

The architectural differences are therefore not in the GPU core but in how the card is configured and packaged. The A4500 has more ROPs (96 versus 80), which enhances its pixel throughput. The A4500 also runs its memory at a higher effective speed (16 Gbps versus 12.5 Gbps), which improves memory bandwidth despite the same bus width. These are binning and configuration differences, not fundamental architectural changes.

The broader architectural context differs by product positioning. The A10M is a server product in the Axx generation; its lack of display outputs and lower TDP suggest it was designed to slot into dense compute servers where power and cooling are constrained. The A4500 is a workstation product in the Ax000 generation; its display outputs and higher power budget support interactive use. The A4500's predecessor was Quadro Turing, while the A10M's predecessor was Tesla Turing. Their successors follow the same split: Server Ada for the A10M, Workstation Ada for the A4500.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward verdict for raw compute: the NVIDIA RTX A4500 outperforms the NVIDIA A10M in the one benchmark where both have recorded scores. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A4500 leads by 4.7%, 141837 versus 135230. The A4500 also offers more memory bandwidth (640.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s), a higher pixel rate (158.4 GPixel/s versus 130.8 GPixel/s), and more ROPs (96 versus 80). For any workload that stresses OpenCL compute, memory throughput, or pixel processing, the A4500 is the stronger card.

The A10M's advantages are not in performance but in integration. It draws 150 W versus 200 W, requires a 450 W PSU instead of 550 W, and fits in a single slot. It has no display outputs, which is a feature in server environments where every watt and every slot matters. Its 96th percentile ranking reflects a focused compute benchmark set, not broader capabilities.

The A4500 is the choice for a workstation user who needs display output (4x DisplayPort 1.4a), higher memory bandwidth, and the best recorded compute performance. The A10M is the choice for a server deployment where headless operation, lower power draw, and single-slot density are priorities. The database's benchmark coverage is thin, with only one shared test, but that test favors the A4500 clearly. The A4500 also has the advantage of a wider tested workload set, including DX12 and Vulkan results, which gives it a more complete performance profile. The A10M remains a capable compute accelerator, but the recorded data shows the A4500 as the more versatile and faster card.