NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

# NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000

The NVIDIA A2 and NVIDIA RTX A1000 are both Ampere-generation workstation GPUs built on the same GA107 chip, yet they serve fundamentally different roles in the data center and desktop workstation markets. The A2 is a compact, power-lean accelerator with no display outputs, while the RTX A1000 is a full-featured desktop card with four mini-DisplayPort connections. Benchmark data reveals a striking performance gap despite their shared lineage, with the RTX A1000 dominating in compute workloads but both cards landing in the same overall performance percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 records an average benchmark score of 34,690, while the NVIDIA RTX A1000 scores 34,207. The A2 is 1.4% ahead of the RTX A1000 according to its nearestRivals deltaPct, though the RTX A1000's own listing shows the reverse relationship.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX A1000 scores 52,078 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 32.1% higher than the A2's 35,357. This is the largest performance delta between the two across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Is there a difference in memory capacity?

A: Yes. The A2 comes with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RTX A1000 offers 8 GB of GDDR6. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the A2's bandwidth is 200.1 GB/s versus the RTX A1000's 192.0 GB/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. They are feature-identical in API support, making them equally viable for modern software stacks.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The RTX A1000 includes 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it suitable for direct display connectivity. The A2 has no display outputs, indicating its intended role as a headless compute or server accelerator.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The A2 is marked as end-of-life, while the RTX A1000 is active. The A2 was released on November 9, 2021, and the RTX A1000 launched on April 15, 2024.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GA107 chip, 8 nm Samsung process node, 8,700 million transistors, and 200 mm² die size. The transistor density is identical at 43.5M per mm². Despite this shared foundation, the two cards diverge significantly in their execution resource allocation. The RTX A1000 packs 2,304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, 18 RT cores, and 72 tensor cores. The A2 is far more conservative, with 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 10 RT cores, and 40 tensor cores. Both cards have 32 ROPs, so pixel throughput capabilities differ only through clock speeds.

Clock behavior tells an interesting story. The A2 runs at a 1,440 MHz base clock and 1,770 MHz boost clock, while the RTX A1000 operates at a much lower 727 MHz base but boosts to 1,462 MHz. The A2's higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores, but not enough to close the compute gap. Memory clocks are similar: the A2's memory runs at 1,563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the RTX A1000's memory runs at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The A2's slightly faster memory and larger 16 GB capacity give it a bandwidth edge of 200.1 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

The physical design also differs. The A2 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the RTX A1000 is also single-slot with no power connectors but includes display outputs and measurable dimensions of 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height. Both share a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RTX A1000's lower 50 W TDP contrasts with the A2's 60 W TDP, an unusual inversion given the RTX A1000's higher core count and compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two benchmark tests, and the RTX A1000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 scores 52,078 against the A2's 35,357, a 32.1% advantage. This is a substantial margin that reflects the RTX A1000's 80% higher shading unit count and 80% more tensor cores. The A2's higher boost clock of 1,770 MHz versus 1,462 MHz cannot overcome the core count disparity in this compute-heavy workload.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the pattern repeats. The RTX A1000 scores 49,574, while the A2 scores 34,023, giving the RTX A1000 a 31.4% lead. This consistent ~31-32% delta across both APIs suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific. The RTX A1000's additional RT cores (18 vs 10) and TMUs (72 vs 40) likely contribute to its Vulkan advantage, though the benchmark does not isolate individual subsystem contributions.

The A2's wins are zero in head-to-head testing, while the RTX A1000 takes both available tests. However, the A2's average benchmark score of 34,690 is higher than the RTX A1000's 34,207, a paradox explained by the fact that the A2's average includes only its two Geekbench scores, while the RTX A1000's average includes an additional 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 969. That low 3DMark result drags down the RTX A1000's average despite its Geekbench dominance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A2 | NVIDIA RTX A1000 |

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

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 727 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1770 MHz | 1462 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 200.1 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 40 | 72 |

| RT Cores | 10 | 18 |

| Tensor Cores | 40 | 72 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.64 GPixel/s | 46.78 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 70.80 GTexel/s | 105.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.531 TFLOPS | 6.737 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.531 TFLOPS | 6.737 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 60 W | 50 W |

| Display Outputs | None | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 163 mm x 69 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2021-11-09 | 2024-04-15 |

The table above highlights the core trade-off: the A2 offers double the memory capacity and higher clock speeds, while the RTX A1000 provides nearly double the compute resources. The A2's higher pixel rate (56.64 vs 46.78 GPixel/s) is a direct result of its higher boost clock, but the RTX A1000's texture rate (105.3 GTexel/s vs 70.80 GTexel/s) shows its TMU advantage. FP32 and FP16 compute are both 1:1 on each card, but the RTX A1000's 6.737 TFLOPS versus the A2's 4.531 TFLOPS represents a 48.6% theoretical compute advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A1000 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores are both roughly 31-32% higher than the A2's, and its FP32 throughput is 48.6% greater. For workloads that stress shading units, tensor cores, or RT cores — such as rendering, AI inference, or graphics development — the RTX A1000 is the clear choice. Its active production status and display outputs make it suitable for desktop workstations where visual output is required.

The A2 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 16 GB versus 8 GB, the A2 can hold larger datasets in GPU memory, which is critical for certain data center inference or analytics workloads. Its bandwidth advantage of 200.1 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s, while modest, further supports memory-heavy tasks. The A2 also has a higher pixel rate (56.64 vs 46.78 GPixel/s), which could benefit certain rasterization tasks despite its lower overall compute. Its end-of-life status, however, limits its appeal for new deployments.

For pure compute density, the RTX A1000's 6.737 TFLOPS in a 50 W envelope is remarkable — it delivers 32.1% higher OpenCL performance than the A2 while consuming 10 W less power. The A2's 60 W TDP is higher despite its lower performance, making the RTX A1000 the more efficient option in both performance-per-watt and performance-per-transistor terms.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: choose the NVIDIA RTX A1000 for compute-intensive workstation tasks, and choose the NVIDIA A2 only for specific memory-capacity or pixel-throughput needs. The RTX A1000's benchmark wins in both Geekbench OpenCL (52,078 vs 35,357) and Vulkan (49,574 vs 34,023) are decisive, with margins exceeding 31%. Its higher shading unit count, tensor core count, and FP32 throughput make it the superior choice for any workload that scales with compute resources.

The A2's 16 GB memory capacity is its one compelling advantage. For workloads where dataset size exceeds 8 GB, the A2's larger memory pool could outweigh its lower compute performance. Its higher pixel rate might also benefit specific display-less rendering pipelines, though the lack of display outputs limits its use cases. However, with zero head-to-head wins and an end-of-life production status, the A2 appears to be a specialized legacy option rather than a forward-looking choice.

The RTX A1000's active production status, lower TDP, and display outputs make it the more versatile and future-proof option. Its average benchmark score of 34,207 is dragged down by the 3DMark Steel Nomad result, but in the two tests where both cards are measured directly, the RTX A1000 wins by substantial margins. The A2's higher average score of 34,690 is misleading, as it reflects a different benchmark mix rather than superior performance. For most buyers, the RTX A1000 is the data-backed recommendation.