NVIDIA A10M vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

NVIDIA’s workstation and server lineups share a common silicon heritage, but the RTX A5500 and A10M are tuned for very different physical realities. The RTX A5500 is a dual-slot, 230 W board with four display outputs, aimed at a professional desktop. The A10M is a single-slot, 150 W card with no display outputs, built for dense server installations. This split dictates everything from core counts to memory configuration, and the benchmark data confirms it: the A5500 leads the A10M by 29.1% in the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL. However, that single result does not tell the whole story, because the A10M’s lower power envelope and smaller footprint make it viable in scenarios where the A5500 simply will not fit. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the practical choice depends on whether you need maximum compute per slot or maximum compute per watt in a constrained chassis.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 wins on raw compute performance outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 174,637 against the A10M’s 135,230, a 29.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head benchmark provided, and the A5500 takes it. Its shading unit count of 10,240 versus 7,168, combined with a boost clock of 1665 MHz versus 1635 MHz, explains the gap. The A5500 also carries 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores, versus 56 and 224 on the A10M, so any workload that leverages those accelerators will see a proportional advantage. The A5500’s 24 GB memory capacity and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth also outclass the A10M’s 20 GB and 500.2 GB/s, which matters for large datasets that exceed the smaller card’s frame buffer.

The A10M wins on physical integration, not performance. Its 150 W TDP means it draws 80 W less than the A5500’s 230 W, and its single-slot design allows two cards to occupy the same rack space as one dual-slot A5500. With a suggested PSU of 450 W versus 550 W, the A10M is far easier to slot into existing server power budgets. It also uses an 8-pin EPS connector, which is common in server power supplies, whereas the A5500 uses a standard 1x 8-pin PCIe connector. If the workload is memory-light and compute-moderate, and the chassis is the constraint, the A10M is the only one of the two that fits. The A10M’s lack of display outputs is irrelevant in a headless server, but it disqualifies it from any workstation role where a monitor must be attached.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the same GA102 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, with identical transistor counts of 28,300 million and a die size of 628 mm². The transistor density is also identical at 45.1M per mm². The architecture is Ampere for both, and they share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The silicon is the same, but NVIDIA has binned and configured it differently for each market segment.

The A5500 is the fully enabled configuration. It uses all 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The A10M is a cut-down version, featuring 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. That is a 30% reduction in shading units, TMUs, and tensor cores, and a 40% reduction in RT cores relative to the A5500. The clock speeds differ slightly: the A5500 runs at 1080 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, while the A10M runs at 975 MHz base and 1635 MHz boost. The A5500’s higher boost clock, combined with its larger core count, produces its FP32 rating of 34.10 TFLOPS versus 23.44 TFLOPS on the A10M. Both have 1:1 FP16 performance, meaning they deliver the same TFLOPS in FP16 as in FP32.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A10M has 20 GB on a 320-bit bus, yielding 500.2 GB/s. The A5500’s memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the A10M runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective). The pixel rate and texture rate reflect these differences: the A5500 delivers 159.8 GPixel/s and 532.8 GTexel/s, versus 130.8 GPixel/s and 366.2 GTexel/s on the A10M. Physically, both are 267 mm long and 112 mm tall, but the A5500 is dual-slot while the A10M is single-slot. The A5500 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the A10M has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the RTX A5500 scores 174,637, while the A10M scores 135,230. The delta is 29.1% in favor of the A5500. This is a substantial margin, larger than the 23% difference in FP32 TFLOPS (34.10 versus 23.44) suggests, which indicates that the A5500’s memory bandwidth and higher core count compound into greater real-world compute throughput. The A5500 also has a 768.0 GB/s memory pipeline versus 500.2 GB/s, a 53.5% advantage, which likely helps in OpenCL workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive.

Context from the nearest rivals makes this result more meaningful. The A5500’s average benchmark score is 165,217, placing it at the 97th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, scores 166,094, which is 0.5% higher. The A5500 also edges out the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894, 0.2% lower) and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504, 1.7% lower), but trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (168,574, 2% higher). The A10M’s average score is 135,230, at the 96th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218, a 0% delta, meaning they are effectively tied. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396) is 0.1% higher, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774) is 0.4% higher, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472) is 0.9% higher. So the A10M sits at the top of its immediate class, but that class is a full 29.1% below the A5500’s class.

FAQ

Q: Does the RTX A5500 beat the A10M in every benchmark?

A: Yes, in the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 versus 135,230, a 29.1% advantage. The A5500 also wins the sole head-to-head comparison.

Q: Can the A10M output video to a display?

A: No. The A10M has no display outputs, while the RTX A5500 has four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. The A10M is designed for headless server use.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX A5500 has a TDP of 230 W, while the A10M has a TDP of 150 W. The A5500 also requires a 550 W suggested PSU, while the A10M needs a 450 W unit.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A10M has 20 GB on a 320-bit bus with 500.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are they the same physical size?

A: Both are 267 mm long and 112 mm tall, but the A5500 is dual-slot while the A10M is single-slot. The A5500 uses a 1x 8-pin power connector; the A10M uses an 8-pin EPS.

Q: Which card has better percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The A5500 ranks at the 97th percentile, while the A10M ranks at the 96th percentile. The A5500’s average benchmark score is 165,217 versus 135,230.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the RTX A5500 is the faster card by a wide margin. Its 29.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 45.5% more FP32 TFLOPS (34.10 versus 23.44), 53.5% more memory bandwidth (768.0 GB/s versus 500.2 GB/s), and 20% more memory capacity (24 GB versus 20 GB), makes it the obvious choice for any workload where raw compute and large datasets are the priority. The A5500 also has 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores versus 56 and 224, so ray tracing and AI inference tasks will scale accordingly. If you need a workstation card with display outputs, the A5500 is the only option of the two. Its 97th percentile rank, sitting just 0.5% below the RTX 4500 Ada Generation and 2% below the Radeon Pro W6900X, puts it in strong company.

The A10M is not a bad card; it is a different tool. Its 96th percentile rank and near-tie with the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (0% delta) show that it is competitive within its power class. The 150 W TDP and single-slot design are the deciding factors. In a server with limited PCIe slots and power headroom, the A10M allows two cards where only one A5500 would fit, and the combined throughput of two A10Ms (270,460 aggregate OpenCL score) exceeds the single A5500 by 54.9%. If your workload is parallelizable across multiple GPUs and your chassis can house them, two A10Ms beat one A5500. If you need a single card with maximum performance, the A5500 wins outright. The choice comes down to density versus peak compute.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A5500 | NVIDIA A10M |

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

| Generation | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) | Server Ampere (Axx) |

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 975 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1635 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 500.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10240 | 7168 |

| TMUs | 320 | 224 |

| ROPs | 96 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 80 | 56 |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | 224 |

| Pixel Rate | 159.8 GPixel/s | 130.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 532.8 GTexel/s | 366.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 34.10 TFLOPS | 23.44 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) | 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | Not provided |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Tesla Turing |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Server Ada |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 165,217 | 135,230 |

| Percentile | 97 | 96 |