AMD Radeon RX 6700 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear line between these two cards. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, and it does so by substantial margins. In the three shared tests, the RX 6700 leads by 41% to 51.9%, which is not a narrow gap but a decisive advantage in raw performance. The NVIDIA RTX A1000, by contrast, posts a higher average benchmark score across its own test set, but that figure comes from different workloads and does not translate into a single victory over the AMD card.

The verdict depends on what the data is used for. The RTX A1000 sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6700 sits at the 75th percentile. That percentile difference suggests the NVIDIA card is better positioned across the broader database, even though it loses every direct comparison to the RX 6700. The A1000 also draws only 50 W, has no power connectors, and fits in a single slot, making it a clear choice for compact workstation builds where space and power draw are the primary constraints. The RX 6700, at 175 W with a dual-slot cooler and an 8-pin connector, is a different class of hardware entirely.

For users who prioritize raw compute in the tests recorded here, the RX 6700 is the unambiguous pick. It dominates in 3DMark Steel Nomad, OpenCL, and Vulkan. For users who need a low-power, single-slot card with active production status and a 2024 release date, the RTX A1000 is the logical option, even if its performance is lower. The RX 6700 is end-of-life, which matters for long-term availability, but its performance advantages are too large to ignore in any performance-first scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different foundries and process nodes. The RTX A1000 uses an 8 nm Samsung process with a GA107 chip, while the RX 6700 uses a 7 nm TSMC process with a Navi 22 chip. The transistor counts differ sharply: the A1000 packs 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the RX 6700 carries 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. The density figures reflect this: 43.5M per mm² for the A1000 versus 51.3M per mm² for the RX 6700, meaning AMD's chip is both larger and denser.

Both cards use GDDR6 memory, but the RX 6700 has more of it: 10 GB versus 8 GB, with a wider 160-bit bus versus 128-bit, and bandwidth of 320.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. The shading unit count is identical at 2304, but the RX 6700 doubles the TMUs (144 versus 72) and ROPS (64 versus 32). The RT core count also doubles: 36 on the AMD card versus 18 on the NVIDIA card. The A1000 has 72 tensor cores, which the RX 6700 lacks entirely, a notable divergence in compute capabilities.

Clock behavior differs as well. The RX 6700 runs a base clock of 1941 MHz and a boost of 2450 MHz, with a game clock of 2174 MHz. The A1000 is far lower, with a base of 727 MHz and a boost of 1462 MHz. Memory clocks also diverge: 12 Gbps effective on the A1000 versus 16 Gbps effective on the RX 6700. The resulting pixel rate is 156.8 GPixel/s for AMD versus 46.78 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rates are 352.8 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 11.29 TFLOPS for the RX 6700 versus 6.737 TFLOPS for the A1000. FP16 is a 2:1 ratio on AMD (22.58 TFLOPS) versus a 1:1 ratio on NVIDIA (6.737 TFLOPS).

The bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A1000, PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RX 6700. Display outputs are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the NVIDIA card, while the AMD card offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three shared benchmarks all go to the RX 6700. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the AMD card scores 2014 against 969 for the A1000, a delta of -51.9% from the NVIDIA card's perspective. That means the RX 6700 is roughly twice as fast in this DirectX 12 workload, the largest margin of the three tests.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700 scores 97841 against 52078, a delta of -46.8%. The AMD card is nearly 88% higher, which is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput and wider memory bus. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6700 posts 83974 against 49574, a delta of -41%. This is the smallest gap of the three, but still a massive difference in favor of AMD.

The A1000 has no recorded wins in any head-to-head test. The RX 6700 holds all three victories. It is notably the A1000 has additional benchmarks in its own profile, including Geekbench Vulkan (49574) and OpenCL (52078), which are the same tests used in the head-to-head comparison, so there is no hidden workload where the NVIDIA card pulls ahead in the database. The RX 6700 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 122223, which has no counterpart on the A1000, but it is not part of the direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A1000 has an average benchmark score of 34207, while the RX 6700 has 30433. The A1000 also sits at the 79th percentile among all GPUs, versus the 75th percentile for the RX 6700.

Q: Does the RX 6700 win every benchmark it shares with the A1000?

A: Yes. The RX 6700 wins 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (2014 vs 969), Geekbench OpenCL (97841 vs 52078), and Geekbench Vulkan (83974 vs 49574). The delta percentages are -51.9%, -46.8%, and -41% respectively.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The RTX A1000 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 6700 has a TDP of 175 W, uses a single 8-pin connector, and needs a suggested PSU of 450 W.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The A1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is newer and still in production?

A: The RTX A1000 was released on April 15, 2024, and its production status is Active. The RX 6700 was released on June 8, 2021, and its production status is End-of-life.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A1000 also has tensor cores (72) which the RX 6700 does not list.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 wins in every measurable performance category from the head-to-head data. It is the clear choice for 3D rendering workloads, compute-heavy tasks, and any application that leverages Vulkan or OpenCL. Its higher pixel rate (156.8 GPixel/s), texture rate (352.8 GTexel/s), and FP32 output (11.29 TFLOPS) all point to a card built for throughput over efficiency. The larger memory pool (10 GB) and wider bus (160-bit) also give it an edge in texture-heavy scenes and larger datasets.

The RTX A1000 wins in efficiency and form factor. At 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a single-slot design, it fits into systems where the RX 6700 cannot physically or electrically operate. Its 163 mm length and 69 mm height are far smaller than the RX 6700's 267 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width. The A1000 also has a higher percentile ranking (79th) across the entire GPU database, suggesting that in a broader context, its performance profile is more competitive relative to all other GPUs, even if it loses to this specific AMD card.

The A1000's tensor cores (72) are a unique feature absent from the RX 6700. For workloads that rely on tensor operations, the NVIDIA card offers a capability the AMD card cannot match, even though the direct benchmarks do not test this. The A1000's active production status and 2024 release date also make it a safer bet for new system integration, while the RX 6700 is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards. Process node: 8 nm (Samsung) for the A1000, 7 nm (TSMC) for the RX 6700. Transistors: 8,700 million versus 17,200 million. Die size: 200 mm² versus 335 mm². Transistor density: 43.5M versus 51.3M per mm². Base clock: 727 MHz versus 1941 MHz. Boost clock: 1462 MHz versus 2450 MHz. Memory clock: 12 Gbps effective versus 16 Gbps effective. Memory size: 8 GB versus 10 GB. Bus width: 128-bit versus 160-bit. Bandwidth: 192.0 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s. TMUs: 72 versus 144. ROPS: 32 versus 64. RT cores: 18 versus 36. Tensor cores: 72 versus null. Pixel rate: 46.78 GPixel/s versus 156.8 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 105.3 GTexel/s versus 352.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 6.737 TFLOPS versus 11.29 TFLOPS. FP16: 6.737 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 22.58 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP: 50 W versus 175 W. Slot width: Single-slot versus Dual-slot. Power connectors: None versus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 450 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions: 163 mm length, 69 mm height versus 267 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width. Production status: Active versus End-of-life. Release date: 2024-04-15 versus 2021-06-08. Predecessor: Quadro Turing versus Navi. Successor: Workstation Ada versus Navi III.