AMD Radeon RX 6700M vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 and AMD Radeon RX 6700M are both end-of-life products from the same era, but they target fundamentally different segments: one is a single-slot workstation card, the other a mobile GPU. Benchmark results are unambiguous here. Across all ten head-to-head tests, the RTX A4000 wins every single matchup, with deltas ranging from a modest 10.8% to a commanding 88%. The average benchmark score of 26,683 for the A4000 sits just 1.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 in its nearest rivals list, while the RX 6700M’s 25,633 average trails the AMD Radeon Pro W5700 by 0.4%. The data paints a clear picture: the RTX A4000 is the stronger performer in every measured category, though the RX 6700M holds its own in specific legacy or compute-adjacent workloads relative to its own peer group.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA RTX A4000 is the outright winner for anyone needing maximum compute throughput and API versatility. It leads in all ten head-to-head benchmarks, including a 41.1% advantage in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, a 36.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, and an 88% margin in Passmark GPU Compute. Its 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, versus the RX 6700M’s 71st percentile, confirms a slight but consistent edge in overall standings.

The AMD Radeon RX 6700M, despite losing every head-to-head, is not without merit. Its nearest rivals list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at a 0.4% higher average score, meaning the RX 6700M is competitive within the mobile GPU space. For a portable device, it offers a 7 nm process, a 2:1 FP16 ratio, and a higher boost clock than the A4000, making it a sensible pick for laptops where power efficiency and raw FP16 throughput matter more than absolute DX12 or compute scores. The verdict: choose the A4000 for desktop workstation tasks requiring consistent multi-API performance; choose the RX 6700M for mobile systems where its lower TDP and integrated design fit the form factor.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on memory. The RTX A4000 ships with 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6700M has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, yielding 320.0 GB/s. That is a 128 GB/s gap in favor of NVIDIA. Clock speeds tell a different story: the A4000 runs a 735 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost, while the RX 6700M runs a 1489 MHz base, a 2300 MHz game clock, and a 2400 MHz boost. The AMD card’s boost clock is 840 MHz higher.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward NVIDIA. The A4000 has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The RX 6700M has 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 36 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. Pixel rates are close — 149.8 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 153.6 GPixel/s for AMD — but texture rate favors AMD at 345.6 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s. FP32 is 19.17 TFLOPS for the A4000 versus 11.06 TFLOPS for the RX 6700M, while FP16 flips: the A4000 offers 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1), the RX 6700M offers 22.12 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 140 W for the A4000, 135 W for the RX 6700M, but the A4000 is single-slot with a 6-pin connector, while the RX 6700M is an IGP with no power connector.

Architecture Differences

The RTX A4000 uses the GA104 chip on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm Samsung process. It packs 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, for a density of 44.4M transistors per mm². The RX 6700M uses the Navi 22 chip on AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm TSMC process. It contains 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 51.3M per mm². The A4000 is part of the Workstation Ampere generation, succeeding Quadro Turing and preceding Workstation Ada, while the RX 6700M belongs to the Navi Mobile generation, succeeding Polaris Mobile.

Feature sets align closely on API support: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The critical difference is tensor cores — the A4000 has 192 of them, the RX 6700M has none. Also, the A4000 has 48 RT cores versus 36 on the RX 6700M. The A4000 outputs via 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6700M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The A4000 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface; the RX 6700M matches that interface, but its slot width is IGP, meaning it is not a standalone card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX A4000 dominates every test, but the margins vary by workload. The largest gap is in Passmark GPU Compute, where the A4000 scores 9760 versus 5191, an 88% delta. This is a compute-heavy result, reflecting the A4000’s 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 and tensor core advantage. The second-largest margin is Passmark G2D at 84.5%, with scores of 1024 versus 555, indicating a massive difference in 2D graphics throughput.

Legacy DirectX tests show consistent leads. Passmark DirectX 9 sees the A4000 at 240 versus 155, a 54.8% delta. DirectX 10 yields 126 versus 92, a 37% delta. DirectX 11 is closer at 158 versus 129, a 22.5% delta, and DirectX 12 narrows further to 72 versus 65, a 10.8% delta. The smallest margin is in the newest API, suggesting the RX 6700M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture is relatively stronger in modern workloads but still loses.

Modern synthetic tests reinforce the pattern. 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 scores 2604 for the A4000 versus 1845 for the RX 6700M, a 41.1% delta. Geekbench Vulkan shows 127645 versus 90816, a 40.6% delta. Geekbench OpenCL is 105739 versus 77666, a 36.1% delta. Passmark G3D is 19459 versus 13536, a 43.8% delta. In every case, the A4000’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate to a substantial lead, with no single benchmark where the RX 6700M closes the gap below 10%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000, at 19.17 TFLOPS, versus 11.06 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon RX 6700M.

Q: Does the RX 6700M have tensor cores?

A: No. The data lists null for tensor cores on the RX 6700M, while the RTX A4000 has 192 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A4000 provides 448.0 GB/s, which is 128 GB/s higher than the RX 6700M’s 320.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700M, with a 2400 MHz boost, versus 1560 MHz for the NVIDIA RTX A4000.

Q: In which benchmark is the A4000’s lead the smallest?

A: Passmark DirectX 12, where the A4000 leads by 10.8%, with scores of 72 versus 65.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes. The production status for both the RTX A4000 and the RX 6700M is listed as end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 wins in every measurable category, but the use cases differ based on the magnitude of the leads. For compute-intensive tasks, the A4000 is the clear choice. Its 88% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 36.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL make it suitable for rendering, simulation, or any workload that leverages FP32 or tensor operations. The 192 tensor cores provide a feature that the RX 6700M entirely lacks, making the A4000 necessary for AI inference or DLSS-style workloads within this comparison. Its 16 GB memory and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth also support larger datasets than the RX 6700M’s 10 GB and 320.0 GB/s.

The RX 6700M wins on portability and raw clock speeds. Its 2400 MHz boost is 840 MHz higher than the A4000’s, and its 7 nm TSMC process with a smaller die (335 mm² versus 392 mm²) suggests better thermal characteristics for a laptop form factor. Its FP16 output of 22.12 TFLOPS exceeds the A4000’s 19.17 TFLOPS, making it technically superior for FP16-heavy workloads that do not require tensor cores. Its texture rate of 345.6 GTexel/s also beats the A4000’s 299.5 GTexel/s, so in pure texturing scenarios, the RX 6700M has a niche advantage. However, given that the RX 6700M loses the only texture-adjacent benchmark (Passmark G3D by 43.8%), that theoretical edge does not translate to practical wins. The data ultimately reserves victory for the A4000 across all ten tests, with the RX 6700M’s strengths being architectural curiosities rather than benchmark winners.