NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

# NVIDIA A2 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB

The NVIDIA A2 and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB are both workstation-class Ampere GPUs aimed at different segments of the market, but benchmark data reveals a stark performance gap. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, the RTX A2000 12 GB delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 66,998, which is 47.2% higher than the A2’s 35,357. This is a decisive margin that frames the entire comparison: the A2000 is the clear compute leader, while the A2 trades performance for a radically smaller footprint and lower power demands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it paints an unambiguous picture. The RTX A2000 12 GB scores 66,998, while the A2 manages 35,357. That is a delta of 47.2% in favor of the A2000, meaning the A2000 nearly doubles the A2’s raw compute throughput in this workload. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute test that stresses shader and memory subsystems, so this result reflects the fundamental architectural imbalance between the two cards.

The A2000’s advantage stems from its significantly larger GPU. It uses the GA106 chip with 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The A2, by contrast, packs only 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is roughly 2.6 times more shader cores on the A2000, which translates directly into the observed 47.2% performance lead. The A2000 also has a wider 192-bit memory bus versus the A2’s 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 200.1 GB/s.

However, the A2 is not without its own merits. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 34,690, while the A2000’s average is 34,154. This is a fascinating inversion: despite winning the OpenCL test by a huge margin, the A2000’s overall average is actually 1.5% lower than the A2’s. This suggests that the A2000’s score is heavily weighted toward compute-heavy workloads, while the A2 may perform better in other, non-compute scenarios that are not captured in the single head-to-head test.

Looking at nearest rivals, the A2 sits at the 79th percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitors being the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB (average score 34,561, delta 0.4%), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541, delta 0.4%), the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, delta 1%), and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, delta 1.4%). The A2000 also lands at the 79th percentile, but its rivals tell a different story: the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (34,207, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997, delta 0.5%), and the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, delta -0.6%). The A2000’s average score is actually slightly below the A2’s, yet its OpenCL peak is far higher — a sign of a more polarized performance profile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA A2 averages 34,690 across all benchmark tests, while the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB averages 34,154. That puts the A2 about 1.5% ahead in overall average, despite losing the OpenCL head-to-head by 47.2%.

Q: Why does the RTX A2000 win the OpenCL test by such a large margin?

A: The A2000 has 3,328 shading units versus the A2’s 1,280, and its memory bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s compared to 200.1 GB/s. These hardware advantages allow it to process far more parallel compute work per clock cycle.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The A2 comes with 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the RTX A2000 12 GB offers 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The A2 has more total capacity, but the A2000 has higher bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making them feature-equivalent from a software compatibility standpoint.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The A2 is a single-slot card with no display outputs, whereas the RTX A2000 12 GB is dual-slot and measures 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The A2’s compact design is ideal for density-constrained server environments.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life production, with the A2 releasing on November 9, 2021, and the A2000 on November 22, 2021. Both belong to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. They share the same transistor density of 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter, but the raw numbers diverge significantly. The A2 uses the GA107 chip, which contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The RTX A2000 12 GB steps up to the GA106 chip, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. That is a 38% increase in transistor count and a 38% increase in die area, giving the A2000 substantially more silicon to work with.

The compute feature sets are similar in kind but different in scale. The A2 has 10 ray tracing cores and 40 tensor cores, while the A2000 has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores. This means the A2000 has 2.6 times more RT and tensor core throughput, which is critical for ray-traced rendering and AI inference workloads. Both cards support the same API stack — DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — so software compatibility is identical, but the A2000’s larger core counts give it a hardware advantage in those workloads.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The A2 runs at a base clock of 1440 MHz and boosts to 1770 MHz, while the A2000 has a much lower base of 562 MHz and a boost of just 1200 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A2000 achieves much higher throughput because of its massive core count advantage. The A2 compensates for fewer cores with higher clocks, but the math does not work in its favor: the A2000’s FP32 throughput is 7.987 TFLOPS versus the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS. Both cards offer FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so they do not gain a bandwidth advantage in half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The A2 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 200.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The A2000 has 12 GB on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The A2’s extra 4 GB is useful for datasets that exceed 12 GB, but the A2000 moves data 44% faster, which matters more for most compute tasks. The effective memory clock is 12.5 Gbps on the A2 versus 12 Gbps on the A2000, but the wider bus on the A2000 overcomes that small clock disadvantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category, so a side-by-side comparison is the clearest way to see where they stand.

Chip and Die: The A2 uses the GA107 chip with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The RTX A2000 12 GB uses the GA106 chip with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die.

Clock Speeds: The A2 runs at 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. The A2000 runs at 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. The A2 is clocked 265% higher at base and 47.5% higher at boost.

Memory: The A2 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 200.1 GB/s bandwidth. The A2000 has 12 GB on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Effective memory speed is 12.5 Gbps on the A2 versus 12 Gbps on the A2000.

Compute Units: The A2 has 1,280 shading units, 40 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 10 RT cores, and 40 tensor cores. The A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 26 RT cores, and 104 tensor cores.

Performance Rates: The A2’s pixel rate is 56.64 GPixel/s and texture rate is 70.80 GTexel/s. The A2000’s pixel rate is 57.60 GPixel/s and texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 4.531 TFLOPS on the A2 versus 7.987 TFLOPS on the A2000.

Physical Design: The A2 is single-slot with no display outputs and no power connectors. The A2000 is dual-slot, measures 167 mm by 69 mm, and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Both have a suggested PSU of 250 W, but the A2’s TDP is 60 W versus the A2000’s 70 W.

Bus Interface: The A2 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The A2000’s wider interface doubles the bandwidth available for data transfers.

Release Date: The A2 launched on November 9, 2021, and the A2000 on November 22, 2021. Both are end-of-life and succeeded by Workstation Ada products.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A2000 12 GB is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 66,998 crushes the A2’s 35,357 by 47.2%, and its FP32 throughput of 7.987 TFLOPS is 76% higher than the A2’s 4.531 TFLOPS. The A2000 also has more than double the texture fill rate (124.8 GTexel/s versus 70.80 GTexel/s) and more RT and tensor cores, making it the better choice for rendering, simulation, and AI inference. Its 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 44% higher than the A2’s, which matters for memory-bound workloads like large matrix operations or high-resolution texture streaming. The A2000’s 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs also make it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups, which the A2 cannot drive at all.

The A2, however, wins in areas that are less about raw speed and more about deployment flexibility. At 60 W TDP with no power connectors, it can be installed in virtually any PCIe slot without additional power cabling, and its single-slot, no-output design makes it ideal for dense server racks where space is at a premium. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the A2000’s x16, is still sufficient for many data-center workloads. The A2 also offers 16 GB of memory, which is 33% more than the A2000’s 12 GB, giving it an edge for datasets that exceed the A2000’s capacity. In terms of average benchmark score, the A2 actually leads the A2000 by 1.5% (34,690 versus 34,154), suggesting that in mixed workloads, the A2’s higher clock speeds and lower latency can compensate for its smaller core count.

Choose the A2000 for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, ray tracing, or AI training, where its larger core count and bandwidth deliver decisive wins. Choose the A2 for headless server deployments, power-constrained environments, or workloads that require more than 12 GB of memory, where its lower TDP and higher capacity are more valuable than raw throughput. Both are end-of-life products, but they serve different niches within the workstation and data-center markets.