NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile has a higher average benchmark score of 70,140, placing it in the 91st percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has an average score of 46,043 and sits in the 85th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The RTX A3000 Mobile wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 79,091 versus 67,695 for the RTX A2000. That is a 16.8% advantage for the mobile card in this compute-oriented workload.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 win any benchmark against the A3000 Mobile?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 69,089 compared to 61,189 for the A3000 Mobile, a margin of 11.4% in favor of the desktop card.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Both are NVIDIA Ampere parts, but they use different chips. The A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip, while the A2000 uses the GA106 chip. Both are fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards have 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. However, the A2000 has higher memory bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s with a 12 Gbps effective speed, while the A3000 Mobile offers 264.0 GB/s with an 11 Gbps effective speed.

Q: Which card has more shading units and tensor cores?

A: The RTX A3000 Mobile has 4,096 shading units and 128 tensor cores. The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units and 104 tensor cores.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data splits the two GPUs cleanly by workload type. The RTX A3000 Mobile wins in Geekbench OpenCL, a test that stresses raw compute throughput and general-purpose GPU processing. This suggests the mobile part is better suited for tasks that rely heavily on parallel floating-point math, such as simulation, rendering pipelines, or scientific computing workloads that favor OpenCL.

The RTX A2000, meanwhile, wins in Geekbench Vulkan. Vulkan is a lower-level graphics API that often benefits from efficient driver overhead and memory bandwidth. The A2000's higher memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s versus 264.0 GB/s) likely contributes to this result. For applications that use Vulkan for rendering or compute, the desktop card holds the edge.

The result is a split decision: one win each. The A3000 Mobile leads in a pure compute benchmark, while the A2000 leads in a graphics-oriented API test. The recorded data shows no single GPU dominating both categories.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Ampere architecture and the same 8 nm Samsung process, but they diverge in chip design. The A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 die, which packs 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. The A2000 uses the smaller GA106 chip, with 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, 44.4M per mm² for the A3000 Mobile versus 43.5M per mm² for the A2000.

The A3000 Mobile carries more execution resources across the board. It has 4,096 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern: 32 RT cores on the A3000 Mobile versus 26 on the A2000. Tensor core counts are 128 and 104, respectively.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A3000 Mobile has no display outputs of its own, as it is designed for portable devices, while the A2000 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The A3000 Mobile belongs to the "Ampere-MW (Ax000)" generation, while the A2000 is part of the "Workstation Ampere (Ax000)" family.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications beyond their chip identities. Clock speeds are close but not identical: the A3000 Mobile runs at a 600 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost, while the A2000 runs at 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the A3000 Mobile at 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) and the A2000 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Memory bandwidth favors the A2000 at 288.0 GB/s, compared to 264.0 GB/s for the A3000 Mobile. Both use 6 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, but the higher memory clock on the A2000 gives it the bandwidth advantage.

Compute throughput strongly favors the A3000 Mobile. Its FP32 performance is 10.08 TFLOPS, while the A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS. FP16 performance matches FP32 on both cards at a 1:1 ratio. Pixel and texture rates follow the same trend: the A3000 Mobile achieves 78.72 GPixel/s and 157.4 GTexel/s, while the A2000 manages 57.60 GPixel/s and 124.8 GTexel/s.

Power profiles are identical at 70 W TDP for both. Neither card requires external power connectors. The A2000 is a dual-slot card measuring 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The A3000 Mobile has no fixed dimensions or slot width, as it is designed for integration into portable devices. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface.

Release timing differs slightly: the A3000 Mobile launched on 2021-04-11, and the A2000 launched on 2021-08-09. The A2000 has a launch MSRP of 449 USD, which can be stated once as a reference point. Both are end-of-life products. The A3000 Mobile's predecessor is Quadro Turing-M and its successor is Ada-MW. The A2000's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX A3000 Mobile scores 79,091 against 67,695 for the RTX A2000. This is a 16.8% advantage for the mobile card. The gap is substantial and aligns with the A3000 Mobile's larger shading unit count and higher FP32 throughput. The 21% shading unit advantage (4,096 versus 3,328) translates into a meaningful compute lead in this workload.

The second benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan, where the result flips. The RTX A2000 scores 69,089, which is 11.4% higher than the A3000 Mobile's 61,189. This is notable because the A3000 Mobile has more raw hardware resources, yet the A2000 still wins. The likely explanation lies in the memory subsystem: the A2000 has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 264.0 GB/s for the A3000 Mobile. Vulkan workloads can be bandwidth-sensitive, and the A2000's 9.1% bandwidth advantage appears to overcome the A3000 Mobile's compute advantage.

The average benchmark scores tell a broader story. The A3000 Mobile averages 70,140 across all recorded tests, ranking in the 91st percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, 0.4% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829, 1% ahead), and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, 1.7% behind). The A3000 Mobile sits in a tight cluster where performance differences among rivals are minimal.

The A2000 averages 46,043, placing it in the 85th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972, 0.2% behind), the Intel Arc A730M (45,592, 1% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601, 1.2% ahead), and the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, 1.2% ahead). Interestingly, the A2000's average is dragged down by its Vulkan score being its only strong result; its OpenCL score is closer to the A3000 Mobile's range.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear trade-off between these two GPUs. The RTX A3000 Mobile is the stronger compute performer, winning Geekbench OpenCL by 16.8% and posting a much higher average benchmark score of 70,140 versus 46,043. Its 10.08 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 4,096 shading units make it the better choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks. Users who run simulations, data processing, or other general-purpose GPU workloads should favor the A3000 Mobile.

The RTX A2000 is the better choice for Vulkan-based applications. Its 11.4% win in Geekbench Vulkan demonstrates that its higher memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s) and desktop-oriented design deliver tangible benefits in this API. The A2000 also offers practical advantages as a standalone card: it has its own display outputs (4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), a fixed dual-slot form factor, and does not depend on a host device for video output. The A3000 Mobile, by contrast, has portable device dependent outputs and no standalone physical specification.

The average benchmark scores reveal a wider gap than the head-to-head tests suggest. The A3000 Mobile's 91st percentile ranking versus the A2000's 85th percentile indicates that the mobile part performs closer to top-tier GPUs overall. However, the A2000's average is heavily influenced by its weaker OpenCL result, which may not reflect its real-world suitability for Vulkan-centric workloads.

For a workstation user focused on compute performance, the A3000 Mobile is the data-backed pick. For a user running Vulkan-based rendering or needing a self-contained desktop GPU with dedicated display outputs, the A2000 is the better fit. Both cards are end-of-life products, and neither offers a clear overall victory. The choice depends entirely on the target API and workload, as the benchmark split demonstrates.