NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 and NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile are both Ampere-generation workstation GPUs, but they target fundamentally different physical environments. The A2000 is a dual-slot desktop card, while the A500 Mobile is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for laptops. Benchmark data shows the A2000 is decisively faster, winning both head-to-head tests by wide margins, but the A500 Mobile’s much lower 30 W TDP and integrated nature make it the only realistic choice for compact, battery-powered systems. The A2000 posts an average benchmark score of 46,043, which places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the A500 Mobile averages 39,568, landing in the 82nd percentile. The 64.1% and 82.4% deltas in the shared tests are too large to ignore for any performance-focused workload, yet the A500 Mobile’s existence makes sense for portability above all else.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy: the RTX A2000 is the superior compute and graphics solution, while the RTX A500 Mobile is the only option for ultra-portable workstations. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the A2000 scores 67,695 against the A500 Mobile’s 41,263, a 64.1% advantage. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the A2000’s 69,089 dwarfs the A500 Mobile’s 37,873, an 82.4% lead. The A2000 also carries more resources across every architectural category — 3,328 shading units versus 2,048, 104 texture mapping units versus 64, 48 ROPs versus 32, 26 ray tracing cores versus 16, and 104 tensor cores versus 64. The A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus for 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the A500 Mobile has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus for 96.00 GB/s. The A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 output is roughly 27% higher than the A500 Mobile’s 6.296 TFLOPS.

Who should pick which? A professional needing maximum rendering, simulation, or AI inference in a desktop workstation should pick the A2000, especially given its 85th percentile ranking and its close statistical tie with the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (average score 45,972, delta 0.2%). A mobile user whose priority is battery life and a thin chassis should pick the A500 Mobile; its 30 W TDP is less than half of the A2000’s 70 W, and its IGP form factor requires no power connectors. The A500 Mobile’s 82nd percentile is still respectable — it trades blows with the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (39,555, delta 0%) — but it cannot match the A2000’s raw throughput. The A2000’s 449 USD launch MSRP is the only price data provided, and it reflects a desktop card with no power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000, with an average benchmark score of 46,043, which is 16.4% higher than the RTX A500 Mobile’s 39,568.

Q: How much faster is the A2000 in the Vulkan test?

A: The A2000 scores 69,089 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 82.4% higher than the A500 Mobile’s 37,873. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any shared test.

Q: Are these GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Ampere architecture and are fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. However, the A2000 uses the GA106 chip, while the A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A500 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is better for a laptop?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile, because it is an IGP with a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The A2000 is a dual-slot card with a 70 W TDP and a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, making it unsuitable for portable systems.

Q: Does the A2000 have any rivals with similar performance?

A: Yes, the A2000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, which has an average score of 45,972, a negligible 0.2% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M and Intel Arc A530M are also close, with deltas of -1.2% in both cases.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Ampere architecture and the same 8 nm Samsung process, with an identical transistor density of 43.5M / mm². The divergence begins at the chip level. The A2000 uses the GA106 chip, which contains 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die. The A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip, which is smaller at 200 mm² and holds 8,700 million transistors. This die size difference of 76 mm² explains why the A2000 has significantly more compute resources: 3,328 shading units versus 2,048, 104 TMUs versus 64, and 48 ROPs versus 32.

The ray tracing and AI capabilities also scale with the chip. The A2000 has 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, while the A500 Mobile has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores. This means the A2000 can handle more complex ray-traced scenes and larger neural network workloads per clock. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so their API feature sets are identical. The memory architecture differs fundamentally: the A2000’s 192-bit bus is three times wider than the A500 Mobile’s 64-bit bus, directly leading to the 288.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s bandwidth disparity.

The clock behavior also reveals different design goals. The A500 Mobile has a higher base clock of 832 MHz and a higher boost clock of 1537 MHz, compared to the A2000’s 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. This inversion suggests the A500 Mobile is tuned for bursty workloads where power must be kept low, while the A2000 relies on its larger chip and wider memory bus to deliver sustained performance. The A500 Mobile’s higher clocks cannot compensate for its 1,280 fewer shading units.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every measurable specification. The A2000 has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the A500 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RT core count is 26 versus 16, and the tensor core count is 104 versus 64. Memory capacity is 6 GB versus 4 GB, bus width is 192-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

The A2000 operates at a base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the A500 Mobile runs at 832 MHz base and 1537 MHz boost. The memory clock is the same at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed. The A2000 achieves a pixel rate of 57.60 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 124.8 GTexel/s, whereas the A500 Mobile reaches 49.18 GPixel/s and 98.37 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 7.987 TFLOPS for the A2000 and 6.296 TFLOPS for the A500 Mobile.

Power and form factor create the starkest contrast. The A2000 has a 70 W TDP, is dual-slot, has no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. It measures 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The A500 Mobile has a 30 W TDP, is an IGP, has no power connectors, and no suggested PSU is listed. It has no physical dimensions because it is soldered to a laptop board. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the A2000 and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the A500 Mobile. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A2000, while the A500 Mobile is described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains only two shared tests, and the A2000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A2000 scores 67,695 against the A500 Mobile’s 41,263, a 64.1% advantage. This test is generally compute-heavy, and the A2000’s larger shader array and 192-bit memory bus provide a massive throughput advantage. The A500 Mobile’s higher clocks do not help enough; it needs more than a 30% clock lead to offset a 62% deficit in shading units.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The A2000 scores 69,089, while the A500 Mobile manages only 37,873, giving the A2000 an 82.4% lead. Vulkan’s lower-level API often exposes memory bandwidth bottlenecks, and the A2000’s 288.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s is a threefold difference. The A500 Mobile’s 64-bit memory bus appears to be a severe constraint in this test, as its 6.296 TFLOPS FP32 rating suggests it should perform closer to the A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS, but the bandwidth deficit holds it back.

The average benchmark scores reflect these head-to-head results. The A2000’s average of 46,043 is 6,475 points higher than the A500 Mobile’s 39,568. The A2000’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation, scores 45,972 — only 0.2% lower — indicating the A2000 is very competitive with a much newer Ada-generation card. The A500 Mobile’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 575 at 39,555, a 0% delta, which shows the A500 Mobile is positioned in a lower performance tier altogether.

Where Each One Wins

The A2000 wins in every benchmark where the two are compared, but its victories extend beyond the numbers. The 6 GB memory capacity and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for larger datasets, higher-resolution textures, and multi-display setups with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. Its 85th percentile ranking places it in the upper echelon of all GPUs, and its 0.2% delta from the RTX 5880 Ada Generation suggests it remains relevant for professional workloads despite being end-of-life. The 70 W TDP with no power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU means it can fit into modest desktop systems.

The A500 Mobile wins in the domains of power efficiency and physical integration. Its 30 W TDP is 40 W lower than the A2000’s, which is critical for laptop thermals and battery life. As an IGP, it requires no slot or cooling solution beyond what the laptop chassis provides. Its higher base and boost clocks (832 MHz and 1537 MHz versus 562 MHz and 1200 MHz) indicate it can ramp up quickly for short bursts, which is typical of mobile workloads. The 82nd percentile ranking shows it is still a capable workstation GPU, trading nearly evenly with the AMD Radeon Pro 575 (0% delta) and the Radeon Pro 575X (1.2% delta).

The choice is not about which GPU is better in absolute terms — the A2000 wins that argument outright. The choice is about the physical constraints of the system. The A2000 is for a desktop workstation where performance is the sole priority. The A500 Mobile is for a mobile workstation where portability, power draw, and integration are non-negotiable, and the user is willing to accept a 64.1% to 82.4% performance penalty in exchange for a 30 W TDP. The data does not suggest the A500 Mobile is a good value; it suggests the A500 Mobile is the only option in its form factor.