NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a clear picture: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins both head-to-head benchmark matchups against the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, with no victories for the mobile part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 146,593 against the A5500 Mobile's 124,287, a decisive 17.9% advantage. The Vulkan result follows a similar pattern: 123,842 for the desktop Ada card versus 103,601 for the Ampere mobile GPU, widening the gap to 19.5%. These are substantial margins that indicate the Ada card's architectural efficiency translates into real-world compute advantages across both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's average benchmark score of 135,218 places it at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the A5500 Mobile's 113,944 average sits at the 94th percentile. The percentiles are close, but the raw average score difference of 21,274 points (roughly 18.7% higher for the Ada card) shows that percentile rankings can mask meaningful performance deltas. The desktop card's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0% delta) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1%), meaning the RTX 4000 Ada Generation sits in a tightly competitive cluster at the top of its segment. The A5500 Mobile, by contrast, trades blows with the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (-0.4%) and trails the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 (-2.7%), while edging out the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 at 110,725 (2.9% ahead).

The per-test deltas are telling: a 17.9% OpenCL win and a 19.5% Vulkan win are consistent, not flukes of one API being optimized for one architecture. Both tests point the same direction, reinforcing that the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is simply faster in compute-bound scenarios. Interestingly, the A5500 Mobile's raw specs suggest it should be competitive—more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more RT cores, and more tensor cores—yet it loses decisively. That inversion between specification count and measured performance is the first clue that the architectural differences between Ada Lovelace and Ampere matter more than raw unit counts.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins with a score of 146,593 versus the RTX A5500 Mobile's 124,287, a 17.9% advantage.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance gap larger or smaller than the OpenCL gap?

A: The Vulkan gap is slightly larger. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation scores 123,842 against 103,601 for the A5500 Mobile, a 19.5% delta, compared to the 17.9% OpenCL margin.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation ranks at the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A5500 Mobile ranks at the 94th percentile. Despite the close percentiles, the average benchmark scores differ by roughly 18.7% in favor of the Ada card.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU based on average benchmark scores?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada Generation's nearest rival is the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0% delta), with AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (-0.1%) close behind. The A5500 Mobile's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (-0.4%), with the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 (-2.7%) also nearby.

Q: Does the RTX A5500 Mobile beat the RTX 4000 Ada Generation in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the RTX 4000 Ada Generation winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, with the A5500 Mobile recording zero wins.

Q: How does the A5500 Mobile's average score compare to the AMD Radeon PRO W7900?

A: The A5500 Mobile's average score of 113,944 is 2.9% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7900's 110,725, indicating it holds a competitive edge over that particular rival despite losing to the RTX 4000 Ada Generation.

# Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could hardly be more different. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip on Samsung's 8 nm node. This process gap is fundamental: the Ada chip packs 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The Ampere chip, by contrast, contains 22,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 496 mm² die, achieving just 44.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The density difference—roughly 2.7x in favor of Ada—explains how NVIDIA could deliver higher performance with fewer absolute resources on a smaller chip.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation runs at a 1500 MHz base clock and boosts to 2175 MHz, while the A5500 Mobile operates at 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. That 675 MHz boost advantage for the Ada card is a direct consequence of the more efficient 5 nm process. The memory clocks also differ: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the Ada card versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the Ampere part. The RT core and tensor core counts are higher on the A5500 Mobile—58 RT cores and 232 tensor cores versus 48 and 192 respectively—yet the Ada card still wins in compute benchmarks, suggesting the Ada RT and tensor core generations are more capable per unit.

The foundry choice is a notable divergence: TSMC for Ada, Samsung for Ampere. The 5 nm process's efficiency advantage shows up in power consumption too, with the RTX 4000 Ada Generation rated at 130 W TDP versus 165 W for the A5500 Mobile—the desktop card delivers higher performance while consuming 35 W less. The A5500 Mobile's larger die, higher transistor count, and broader memory bus (256-bit versus 160-bit) are classic Ampere design traits, but the architectural efficiency of Ada Lovelace overcomes those raw physical advantages. The production status confirms the generational shift: the Ada card is "Active" while the A5500 Mobile is "End-of-life," with the latter's successor listed as "Ada-MW" and the former's as "Blackwell PRO W."

# Specification Differences

The memory subsystems present a direct contrast. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation offers 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the A5500 Mobile provides 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The mobile part wins on bandwidth by 42%, but the Ada card wins on capacity by 25%. The A5500 Mobile's wider bus is a legacy of the Ampere design, whereas the Ada card's narrower bus relies on higher clock speeds to compensate—and still loses on raw bandwidth, yet wins on overall compute performance.

Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the A5500 Mobile numerically: 7424 shading units versus 6144, 232 TMUs versus 192, and 96 ROPs versus 64. The pixel rate is nearly identical—144.0 GPixel/s for Ampere versus 139.2 GPixel/s for Ada—but the texture rate flips in favor of Ada: 417.6 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s. That texture rate advantage despite fewer TMUs underscores the clock speed benefit of the Ada architecture. FP32 and FP16 compute both favor the Ada card: 26.73 TFLOPS versus 22.27 TFLOPS, a 20% lead despite the lower unit count.

Physical and power characteristics differ sharply. The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is a single-slot card measuring 245 mm in length and 112 mm in height, requiring a 1x 16-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The A5500 Mobile has no slot width, dimensions, or power connector data—it is a mobile part whose display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" rather than the Ada card's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The TDP differential is 130 W versus 165 W. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator. Release dates separate them by roughly 17 months: the A5500 Mobile launched in March 2022, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation arrived in August 2023.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the faster GPU in both measured benchmarks, winning OpenCL by 17.9% and Vulkan by 19.5%. Its average benchmark score of 135,218 versus 113,944 represents a substantial overall performance lead, and its 95th percentile ranking versus 94th, while close, still favors the Ada card. The A5500 Mobile's higher raw specifications—more shading units, more ROPs, more RT cores, more tensor cores, and higher memory bandwidth—do not translate into benchmark victories. The Ada card's architectural efficiency, driven by the 5 nm TSMC process and higher clock speeds, overcomes those numerical disadvantages.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the clear choice. It also offers more memory (20 GB versus 16 GB) and lower power consumption (130 W versus 165 W). The A5500 Mobile's advantages are narrower: higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s) and a wider 256-bit bus, which could benefit specific bandwidth-bound applications that the Geekbench tests do not capture. However, the A5500 Mobile is end-of-life, while the RTX 4000 Ada Generation remains active in production. The desktop card's single-slot form factor and fixed display outputs make it a workstation component, whereas the mobile part's "Portable Device Dependent" outputs mean it belongs in laptops where its 165 W TDP is more feasible.

# Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation wins in compute-heavy scenarios as measured by Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—both tests show it ahead by 17.9% and 19.5% respectively. Its 20 GB memory capacity and 26.73 TFLOPS FP32 performance make it better suited for large dataset workloads and general compute tasks. The lower 130 W TDP and single-slot design also make it more practical for dense workstation builds where space and power are constraints. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable multi-display setups directly, without adapter dependencies.

The RTX A5500 Mobile wins on memory bandwidth—512.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s—and on memory bus width (256-bit versus 160-bit). These specs suggest it could handle bandwidth-intensive operations like certain rendering or data-shuffling tasks more efficiently, even if the overall compute scores lag. Its higher shading unit count (7424 versus 6144) and more RT cores (58 versus 48) might benefit ray-traced workloads that scale with unit counts rather than clock speeds, though the Geekbench data does not directly test this. The mobile form factor is itself a win: for users who need a workstation GPU in a laptop, the A5500 Mobile is the only option of the two, and its 165 W TDP is reasonable for a high-end mobile part. The A5500 Mobile also holds a competitive position against the AMD Radeon PRO W7900, beating it by 2.9% in average score, indicating it remains relevant in its segment despite losing to the Ada card.