NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation is the faster card in every recorded benchmark. Its average benchmark score of 184,664 places it at the 98th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A4500 sits at 91,671 and the 93rd percentile. That is a massive gap, roughly double the average score, and it comes from a newer architecture, more silicon, and higher clocks.

For a builder deciding today, the RTX 5000 Ada is the choice if you need maximum compute throughput, especially in Vulkan workloads, and if your tasks can use 32 GB of VRAM. It is also the only one of the two that is still in active production. The RTX A4500, now end-of-life, still makes sense only if you already own one, find it at a steep discount in the used market, or have a workload that specifically benefits from its wider 320-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth. The A4500 is not a bad card, it is simply outclassed on every metric the database measures.

The RTX 5000 Ada wins both head-to-head tests, and it wins them by wide margins. If your software scales with raw shader throughput or ray tracing cores, the Ada card is the only rational pick. If you are constrained by power draw, the A4500 does draw less, but that is a secondary concern for most workstation builds.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations and foundries. The RTX 5000 Ada uses the AD102 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, with 76,300 million transistors packed into a 609 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The RTX A4500 uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, with 28,300 million transistors on a slightly larger 628 mm² die, giving a much lower density of 45.1M per mm².

The architecture names tell the story: Ada Lovelace versus Ampere. The RTX 5000 Ada has 12,800 shading units, 400 texture mapping units, and 176 ROPs. It also carries 100 ray tracing cores and 400 tensor cores. The RTX A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores. In every count, the Ada card has roughly 1.8x the hardware, which explains its performance lead.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The RTX 5000 Ada runs at a 1155 MHz base and 2550 MHz boost, while the A4500 sits at 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. The Ada card is not just wider, it is also faster per clock. Memory is another split: the RTX 5000 Ada uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and an effective 18 Gbps data rate. The A4500 has 20 GB on a 320-bit bus, which gives it 640.0 GB/s bandwidth at 16 Gbps effective. So the A4500 actually has more memory bandwidth, but the Ada card has more capacity and a higher data rate per pin.

Both cards are dual-slot, 267 mm long, 112 mm high, and use PCIe 4.0 x16. Both output 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The power delivery differs: the RTX 5000 Ada uses a 1x 16-pin connector with a 250 W TDP and a recommended 600 W PSU, while the A4500 uses a 1x 8-pin connector with a 200 W TDP and a 550 W PSU recommendation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons, and the RTX 5000 Ada wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Ada card scores 175,286 against the A4500's 141,837. That is a 23.6% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 194,041 versus 129,980, a 49.3% margin. The Vulkan result is the standout, nearly half again as fast as the A4500.

These scores align with the architectural differences. OpenCL is a general compute workload, and the Ada card's extra shaders and higher clocks give it a solid but not overwhelming edge. Vulkan, which often stresses geometry throughput and driver efficiency, shows a much larger separation. The 49.3% delta suggests the Ada architecture handles Vulkan's command processing and draw calls far better, not just raw math.

For context, the RTX 5000 Ada's average score of 184,664 puts it just 0.5% ahead of an NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB (183,725), 1.4% ahead of an RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell (182,109), and 3.7% ahead of a GeForce RTX 4090 D (178,050). It trails only the A100 SXM4 40 GB (187,147) by 1.3% among its listed rivals. The A4500's 91,671 average score, by contrast, sits within 0.6% of the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134), 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92,466), and 4.8% ahead of the Quadro GP100 (87,445).

The head-to-head delta of 23.6% in OpenCL and 49.3% in Vulkan is far larger than the gap between the two cards' nearest rivals. In other words, this is not a close contest. The A4500 is competitive with mobile and older workstation parts, while the RTX 5000 Ada is playing in the top tier of all GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the RTX A4500 has 20 GB. The A4500 does have a wider 320-bit bus, but the Ada card still wins on capacity.

Q: Is the RTX A4500 still being produced?

A: No. The database lists the RTX A4500 as end-of-life, while the RTX 5000 Ada Generation is marked as active production.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation. It scores 194,041 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 49.3% higher than the RTX A4500's 129,980. This is the largest margin in any recorded test between the two.

Q: How do these cards compare to an NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation averages 184,664, which is 0.5% above the A100 SXM4 80 GB's 183,725. The RTX A4500's 91,671 is not listed near that class of card; its nearest rival is the RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134.

Q: Do both cards use the same display outputs?

A: Yes, both have 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and use PCIe 4.0 x16. They are also identical in physical size: 267 mm long and 112 mm high, both dual-slot.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A4500, at 640.0 GB/s, thanks to its 320-bit bus. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 576.0 GB/s on a 256-bit bus, but it runs its GDDR6 at a higher 18 Gbps effective versus the A4500's 16 Gbps.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5000 Ada Generation wins every measured benchmark, so the practical question is where its margins justify the choice. In OpenCL compute, it leads by 23.6%, which is significant for any rendering, simulation, or machine learning task that relies on raw FP32 throughput. The Ada card's 65.28 TFLOPS FP32 versus the A4500's 23.65 TFLOPS is a 2.76x difference in theoretical compute, and the benchmark delta reflects that advantage. For Vulkan, the 49.3% lead makes it the clear pick for any application using Vulkan for real-time visualization, game engine work, or interactive rendering.

The Ada card also wins on future-proofing: it is in active production, while the A4500 is end-of-life. If you are building a new workstation and expect to keep it for several years, the Ada card's 32 GB VRAM and newer architecture give it a longer useful life. The 98th percentile ranking means it outperforms nearly all GPUs in the database, so it will not be a bottleneck for most workloads.

Where does the A4500 win? Its memory bandwidth is higher (640.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s), which could help in specific bandwidth-bound tasks that fit within 20 GB. It also draws less power: 200 W versus 250 W, with a 550 W PSU recommendation instead of 600 W. For a dense multi-GPU workstation or a system with a modest power supply, that 50 W difference may matter. The A4500 uses a standard 8-pin connector, which is more universally compatible than the 16-pin connector on the Ada card. But none of these advantages show up in the benchmark scores. The A4500 is the right choice only if your workload is explicitly bandwidth-limited, your power budget is strict, or you need to avoid the 16-pin connector.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation | NVIDIA RTX A4500 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 76,300 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 609 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 125.3M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1155 MHz | 1050 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2550 MHz | 1650 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB GDDR6 | 20 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 640.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 12,800 | 7,168 |

| TMUs | 400 | 224 |

| ROPs | 176 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 100 | 56 |

| Tensor Cores | 400 | 224 |

| Pixel Rate | 448.8 GPixel/s | 158.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,020.0 GTexel/s | 369.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 65.28 TFLOPS | 23.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 65.28 TFLOPS (1:1) | 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 200 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 550 W |

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

| Release Date | 2023-08-08 | 2021-11-22 |

| Predecessor | Workstation Ampere | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Blackwell PRO W | Workstation Ada |

The table shows a clear generational leap. The RTX 5000 Ada has nearly 2.7x the transistors, 2.7x the FP32 throughput, 1.8x the shading units, and 1.8x the RT cores. It also boosts 900 MHz higher. The only spec where the A4500 wins is memory bandwidth, and that is a narrow advantage of 64 GB/s. Both cards share the same API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), the same dual-slot cooler footprint, and the same four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.