NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a dominant performance profile for the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation across the two benchmark tests. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation scored 175,286 points against the RTX A4500 Mobile’s 105,307 points. This represents a 66.5% advantage for the desktop-class card, a substantial margin that reflects the fundamental differences in compute throughput between the two products. The gap widens considerably in the Vulkan graphics workload, where the RTX 5000 Ada Generation posted 194,041 points versus 76,960 points for the RTX A4500 Mobile, a 152.1% lead. That is not a marginal victory; the Vulkan result shows the Ada card delivering more than double the raw score of the Ampere mobile part.

To contextualize the RTX 5000 Ada Generation’s standing, the database places it at the 98th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 184,664 across all recorded tests. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB, which trails by a mere 0.5%, and the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 40 GB, which leads by 1.3%. The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell sits 1.4% behind, while the GeForce RTX 4090 D is 3.7% behind. These deltas indicate that the RTX 5000 Ada Generation sits in a very tight cluster at the top of the performance hierarchy, trading blows with data-center accelerators and the latest Blackwell workstation part.

The RTX A4500 Mobile, by contrast, holds the 93rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 91,134. Its nearest rivals are much closer in performance: the desktop RTX A4500 scores 0.6% lower, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 is 1.4% lower, the Quadro GP100 is 4.2% higher, and the Radeon PRO W7600 is 4.6% higher. This tells a different story: the mobile Ampere card competes in a mid-range bracket where small percentage differences separate products, whereas the Ada desktop card operates in a tier where even the closest competitor is within a few points but the absolute performance is far higher.

The head-to-head tally is unambiguous: the RTX 5000 Ada Generation wins both recorded tests, with a 2-0 record. No test in the database shows the RTX A4500 Mobile taking a victory. The Vulkan delta of 152.1% is particularly striking because it suggests that not only raw compute but also graphics pipeline efficiency is vastly improved on the Ada architecture. OpenCL, which often reflects general-purpose compute, shows a smaller but still decisive gap. The data does not show any scenario where the mobile part closes the distance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectural generations and are built on different manufacturing processes. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation uses the AD102 chip, built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. The RTX A4500 Mobile uses the GA104 chip, built on the Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This process difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap: the Ada chip packs 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per square millimeter. The Ampere chip contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, for a density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The Ada part has over four times the transistor count and nearly three times the density.

Core counts follow the same pattern. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 12,800 shading units, 400 texture mapping units, and 176 render output units. It also carries 100 RT cores and 400 tensor cores. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 5,888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores. In every category, the Ada card has more than double the resources. The RT core count of 100 versus 46 suggests that ray tracing workloads, if tested, would show a similar or larger advantage for the Ada part. The tensor core count of 400 versus 184 points to a major difference in AI and machine learning inference throughput.

Memory configurations differ in capacity but not in bus width. Both GPUs use a 256-bit memory bus, but the RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory running at 18 Gbps effective, yielding 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory at 16 Gbps effective, for 512.0 GB/s. The Ada card has double the memory capacity and 12.5% more bandwidth. The clock speeds also favor the Ada part: base clock of 1155 MHz versus 930 MHz, and boost clock of 2550 MHz versus 1500 MHz. The boost clock difference is especially large, 2550 MHz against 1500 MHz, a 70% higher peak frequency.

Pixel and texture rates reflect these combined differences. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation achieves 448.8 GPixel/s and 1,020.0 GTexel/s. The RTX A4500 Mobile manages 144.0 GPixel/s and 276.0 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance tells the same story: 65.28 TFLOPS FP32 for the Ada card versus 17.66 TFLOPS for the mobile part, a 3.7x difference. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical, but the underlying hardware capability is vastly different.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, uses a dual-slot form factor with a single 16-pin power connector, and measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The RTX A4500 Mobile has a 140 W TDP, no dedicated power connectors (power comes through the mobile platform), no slot width designation, and no fixed dimensions since it is portable-device dependent. The production status also differs: the Ada card is Active, while the Ampere mobile part is End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation wins every single benchmark category. That means for any workload represented by Geekbench OpenCL or Geekbench Vulkan, the desktop Ada card is the superior choice. The OpenCL test, which typically stresses general compute, shows a 66.5% lead. The Vulkan test, which stresses graphics and rasterization pipelines, shows a 152.1% lead. If a workload leans on compute throughput, the Ada card’s 65.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 1,020.0 GTexel/s texture rate provide the headroom. If a workload is graphics-bound, the 448.8 GPixel/s pixel rate and the much higher boost clock of 2550 MHz give it an overwhelming edge.

The RTX A4500 Mobile does not have a single recorded win. However, its data does indicate where it is competitive relative to its own class. Its 93rd percentile ranking and an average score of 91,134 place it near the desktop RTX A4500 (0.6% lower) and the Radeon Instinct MI60 (1.4% lower). For a mobile part, that is respectable: it is not far off a full desktop workstation card from the same generation. The 140 W TDP and lack of external power connectors mean it fits into portable workstations, which the 250 W, dual-slot, 267 mm long Ada card cannot do. The 16 GB memory capacity is half of the Ada card but still substantial for mobile rendering or moderate model training. The 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is not far behind the Ada card’s 576.0 GB/s, so memory-bound workloads would see a smaller relative gap than compute-bound ones.

In scenarios where physical size, power draw, and portability matter more than raw performance, the RTX A4500 Mobile is the only viable choice between the two, simply because the Ada card is not a mobile part at all. But in every benchmark recorded, the Ada card wins. The data does not support any use case where the mobile Ampere part outperforms the desktop Ada part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 184,664, compared to 91,134 for the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile. The Ada card also ranks at the 98th percentile among all GPUs, while the mobile part ranks at the 93rd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Vulkan?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation scored 194,041 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RTX A4500 Mobile scored 76,960. The Ada card leads by 152.1%, meaning it delivers more than double the Vulkan performance.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with the same 256-bit bus but 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation has 12,800 shading units, 400 TMUs, 176 ROPs, 100 RT cores, and 400 tensor cores. The RTX A4500 Mobile has 5,888 shading units, 184 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 46 RT cores, and 184 tensor cores.

Q: Which card is still in production?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation has an Active production status. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile is listed as End-of-life.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput difference?

A: The RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers 65.28 TFLOPS FP32, while the RTX A4500 Mobile delivers 17.66 TFLOPS FP32. The Ada card has roughly 3.7 times the single-precision compute throughput.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The chip design is different: AD102 for the Ada card versus GA104 for the mobile part. The architecture is Ada Lovelace versus Ampere. The process node is 5 nm TSMC versus 8 nm Samsung. Transistor count is 76,300 million versus 17,400 million, and die size is 609 mm² versus 392 mm². Transistor density is 125.3M per mm² versus 44.4M per mm². The base clock is 1155 MHz versus 930 MHz, and the boost clock is 2550 MHz versus 1500 MHz. Memory speed is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory size is 32 GB versus 16 GB. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units are 12,800 versus 5,888. TMUs are 400 versus 184. ROPs are 176 versus 96. RT cores are 100 versus 46. Tensor cores are 400 versus 184. Pixel rate is 448.8 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,020.0 GTexel/s versus 276.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 65.28 TFLOPS versus 17.66 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is also 65.28 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 17.66 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 250 W versus 140 W. The slot width is dual-slot versus null for the mobile part. Power connectors are 1x 16-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 600 W versus null. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable device dependent. Dimensions are 267 mm by 112 mm versus null. Production status is Active versus End-of-life. Release date is August 8, 2023 versus March 21, 2022. The generation is Workstation Ada versus Ampere-MW. The predecessor is Workstation Ampere versus Quadro Turing-M, and the successor is Blackwell PRO W versus Ada-MW. The only identical fields are the 256-bit memory bus width, PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, GDDR6 memory type, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and the manufacturer, NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation is the superior performer in every benchmark recorded. It wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests by margins of 66.5% and 152.1%, respectively. Its average score of 184,664 places it near the top of all GPUs, within 1.3% of the A100 SXM4 40 GB and ahead of the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell. Anyone whose priority is raw compute, graphics throughput, or memory capacity should select the RTX 5000 Ada Generation, provided they can accommodate a 250 W, dual-slot, 267 mm long card with a 16-pin power connector and a 600 W PSU.

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, by contrast, is a mobile part with a 140 W TDP, no external power connectors, and portable-device-dependent outputs. It ranks at the 93rd percentile, and its average score of 91,134 puts it within 4.6% of the Radeon PRO W7600 and 4.2% of the Quadro GP100. It is competitive within its mobile class, but it cannot match the Ada card’s 65.28 TFLOPS FP32 or 32 GB memory capacity. The choice between these two is not a performance decision; it is a form-factor decision. If the workload requires a desktop workstation with maximum throughput, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation is the only option that the data supports. If the requirement is a portable workstation with moderate compute capability, the RTX A4500 Mobile is the designated part, but it will deliver less than half the Vulkan performance and roughly 60% of the OpenCL performance of the desktop Ada card. The recorded benchmarks show no scenario where the mobile part wins, so for any performance-sensitive task, the Ada card is the clear pick.