NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance hierarchy between these two workstation-class Ampere GPUs. In the two shared tests—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—the desktop-oriented NVIDIA RTX A4500 wins both outright, with margins that are anything but subtle.

Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A4500 posts a score of 141,837, while the RTX A3000 Mobile manages 79,091. That is a 79.3% delta in favor of the A4500. To put that in perspective, the A4500 is not merely faster; it is approaching double the compute throughput of the mobile part in this general-purpose compute workload. The OpenCL test stresses raw shader and compute pipeline performance, and the A4500’s larger silicon and higher clock envelope translate directly into a massive lead.

The gap widens further in Geekbench Vulkan. Here the A4500 scores 129,980, against 61,189 for the A3000 Mobile. The deltaPct jumps to 112.4%, meaning the A4500 is more than twice as fast in this API. Vulkan tends to expose lower-level hardware capabilities, and the results indicate the A4500’s superior shading unit count and memory subsystem deliver outsized gains in graphics-heavy or async-compute scenarios. This is not a close contest by any metric.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the A4500 sits at 91,671, while the A3000 Mobile averages 70,140. That is a 31% overall gap across all recorded benchmarks, though the head-to-head tests show an even starker divide. The A4500’s percentile rank among all GPUs is 93, placing it in the top tier, whereas the A3000 Mobile sits at 91—still strong, but clearly a step below.

For rival context, the A4500’s nearest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, which averages 91,134—just 0.6% behind. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 is 0.9% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 trails by 4.8%. The A3000 Mobile, meanwhile, trades blows with the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (0.2% ahead), AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (0.4% ahead), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (1% behind). This shows that while the A4500 competes at the high-end workstation tier, the A3000 Mobile is positioned among mid-range and previous-generation flagships.

In short, the head-to-head data delivers a clear verdict: the RTX A4500 dominates the RTX A3000 Mobile in every shared benchmark, with margins ranging from substantial to overwhelming. The only question is whether the mobile part’s power efficiency and form factor can justify its existence in the face of such a performance deficit.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, but they are fundamentally different chips with different design goals. The RTX A4500 uses the GA102 die, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process. This is NVIDIA’s largest consumer/professional chip, packing 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². In contrast, the RTX A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip—a smaller, more power-conscious design with 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, for a density of 44.4 million per mm². The density figures are nearly identical, confirming that both chips come from the same process generation, but the A4500 simply has far more silicon to work with.

The core configuration differences are stark. The A4500 fields 7,168 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The A3000 Mobile is cut down to 4,096 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is a 43% reduction in shader count and a 50% reduction in TMUs. Ray tracing hardware follows suit: the A4500 has 56 RT cores, while the A3000 Mobile has 32. Tensor cores—critical for AI and machine learning workloads—number 224 on the A4500 versus 128 on the mobile part.

Clock speeds compound the core count disadvantage. The A4500 runs at a 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost, while the A3000 Mobile idles at a 600 MHz base and boosts to just 1230 MHz. The combination of fewer cores and lower clocks explains the massive compute gap: the A4500 delivers 23.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the A3000 Mobile manages only 10.08 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both (1:1 ratio), so the proportional gap carries over to half-precision workloads.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The A4500 comes with 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, providing 640.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A3000 Mobile is limited to 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding just 264.0 GB/s. That is less than half the bandwidth, which will severely constrain memory-bound workloads like large dataset processing or high-resolution texture streaming. Effective memory speed also differs: 16 Gbps on the A4500 versus 11 Gbps on the A3000 Mobile.

The power envelope tells the story of their intended use cases. The A4500 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 200 W TDP and a single 8-pin power connector, requiring a 550 W suggested PSU. The A3000 Mobile draws just 70 W, uses no external power connectors, and relies on portable device-dependent display outputs. The A4500 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the mobile part’s display connectivity is entirely dependent on the laptop implementation.

Both support the same API feature set—DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4—so software compatibility is a non-issue. The A4500 was released in November 2021, while the A3000 Mobile came earlier in April of the same year. Both are end-of-life products, with the A4500 succeeding Quadro Turing and being succeeded by Workstation Ada, while the A3000 Mobile follows Quadro Turing-M and leads to Ada-MW.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the superior performer in every measurable way. If raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and graphics capability are the priorities, the A4500 is the clear choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 79.3% and 112.4%, and its average benchmark score is 31% higher. The 93rd percentile ranking versus 91st further cements its position.

Who should pick the RTX A4500? Anyone running desktop workstation workloads where performance is paramount—3D rendering, simulation, large-scale data analysis, or AI inference. The 20 GB memory capacity and 640.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for datasets that would choke the 6 GB mobile part. The 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than double the mobile GPU’s 10.08 TFLOPS, making it the obvious choice for compute-heavy tasks.

Who should pick the RTX A3000 Mobile? The answer comes down to mobility and power constraints, not performance. The 70 W TDP is less than half the A4500’s 200 W, making it feasible in a laptop chassis. If the workload requires portability—field work, on-site visualization, or remote collaboration—the A3000 Mobile is the only option of the two, as the A4500 has no mobile form factor. However, the performance penalty is severe: in Vulkan, the A4500 is more than twice as fast, and in OpenCL it is nearly 80% faster.

There is no scenario where the A3000 Mobile wins on specs. It is smaller, slower, and has less memory. But it exists for a different purpose. The data shows that the A3000 Mobile is competitive with desktop cards like the Quadro P6000 (0.2% behind) and Radeon Pro WX 8200 (0.4% behind), which is respectable for a laptop GPU. Yet against the A4500, it is outclassed in every benchmark.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the A4500 for performance, choose the A3000 Mobile for portability. The 70 W power draw and lack of external power connectors make the mobile part a practical choice for battery-powered systems, but anyone expecting desktop-class performance from the A3000 Mobile will be disappointed by the data.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA RTX A4500 and the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile:

• Chip: GA102 vs GA104
• Generation: Workstation Ampere (Ax000) vs Ampere-MW (Ax000)
• Transistors: 28,300 million vs 17,400 million
• Die Size: 628 mm² vs 392 mm²
• Transistor Density: 45.1M / mm² vs 44.4M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1050 MHz vs 600 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1650 MHz vs 1230 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) vs 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 20 GB vs 6 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 320 bit vs 192 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 640.0 GB/s vs 264.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 7168 vs 4096
• TMUs: 224 vs 128
• ROPs: 96 vs 64
• RT Cores: 56 vs 32
• Tensor Cores: 224 vs 128
• Pixel Rate: 158.4 GPixel/s vs 78.72 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 369.6 GTexel/s vs 157.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 23.65 TFLOPS vs 10.08 TFLOPS
• FP16: 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 10.08 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 200 W vs 70 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs (not specified)
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs (not specified)
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• Dimensions: 267 mm (10.5 inches) length, 112 mm (4.4 inches) height vs (not specified)
• Release Date: 2021-11-22 vs 2021-04-11
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing vs Quadro Turing-M
• Successor: Workstation Ada vs Ada-MW

Fields that are identical include manufacturer (NVIDIA), architecture (Ampere), process node (8 nm), foundry (Samsung), memory type (GDDR6), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and production status (End-of-life).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 delivers 23.65 TFLOPS, more than double the RTX A3000 Mobile’s 10.08 TFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The RTX A4500 offers 640.0 GB/s, while the RTX A3000 Mobile is limited to 264.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The RTX A4500 has a 200 W TDP, whereas the RTX A3000 Mobile draws only 70 W.

Q: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, what is the performance delta?

A: The RTX A4500 scores 129,980, which is 112.4% higher than the A3000 Mobile’s 61,189.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, but the A4500 uses the GA102 chip and the A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RTX A4500 averages 91,671, while the RTX A3000 Mobile averages 70,140.