NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile and NVIDIA TITAN V represent two very different eras and design philosophies. The A500 Mobile is a low-power Ampere-based solution for professional laptops, while the TITAN V is a high-end Volta desktop card. The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap, but also reveals why each card exists in its respective market.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and in both, the TITAN V dominates by a wide margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the TITAN V scores 157,265, while the RTX A500 Mobile scores 41,263. This results in a delta of -73.8% for the A500 Mobile, meaning the TITAN V is roughly 3.8 times faster in this compute workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story: the TITAN V scores 152,117 against the A500 Mobile’s 37,873, a delta of -75.1%. The TITAN V wins both recorded head-to-head tests, giving it a clean 2-0 record in this comparison.

These are not subtle differences. The TITAN V’s OpenCL score is nearly quadruple that of the A500 Mobile. In Vulkan, the gap is even wider on a percentage basis. For any workload that scales with raw compute throughput, the TITAN V is in a different league. The A500 Mobile’s scores, while lower, are still respectable for its class. Its 41,263 OpenCL score places it in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, which is noteworthy for a 30 W mobile part. The TITAN V, despite its much higher raw scores, sits at the 79th percentile, a quirk of the database’s distribution that reflects the wide range of GPUs tested.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The A500 Mobile averages 39,568 across its tests, while the TITAN V averages 34,355. This seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but it is explained by the different test suites each card was subjected to. The TITAN V has many more recorded benchmarks, including older DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests where it scores relatively low (213, 153, and 152 respectively), dragging down its average. The A500 Mobile only has two recorded tests, both of which are strong for its class. The lesson here is that average scores must be viewed with context; the head-to-head tests are the more reliable indicator of relative performance between these two specific cards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in general compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 157,265 versus the RTX A500 Mobile’s 41,263, a 73.8% advantage. In Vulkan, the TITAN V scores 152,117 versus 37,873, a 75.1% advantage.

Q: Does the RTX A500 Mobile have any performance advantage?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the TITAN V winning both tests. The A500 Mobile does not win any of the two direct comparisons in the database.

Q: How do these cards compare in terms of memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The TITAN V has 12 GB of HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 651.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A500 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s. This is a massive difference in both capacity and throughput.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and die size?

A: The TITAN V uses the GV100 chip with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die. The RTX A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The TITAN V’s chip is substantially larger and more complex.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile has a TDP of 30 W and uses no power connectors, as it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) for laptops. The TITAN V has a 250 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup, and has a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which card is newer and what are their production statuses?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile was released on 2022-03-21, while the TITAN V was released on 2017-12-06. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is profound. The RTX A500 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture, using the GA107S chip manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. The TITAN V uses the older Volta architecture with the GV100 chip, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process. This process difference is critical: the A500 Mobile packs 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the TITAN V has 25.9 million per square millimeter. The A500 Mobile’s newer process allows for a much denser design, which is why it can achieve reasonable performance at just 30 W.

The TITAN V compensates with sheer scale. It has 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, compared to the A500 Mobile’s 8,700 million on 200 mm². This gives the TITAN V a massive raw compute resource pool. It features 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The A500 Mobile has 2,048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The TITAN V also has 640 tensor cores, while the A500 Mobile has 64. Interestingly, the TITAN V has no dedicated RT cores, while the A500 Mobile has 16. The A500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the TITAN V is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The FP16 and FP32 performance tells a story of different priorities. The A500 Mobile has a 1:1 ratio, with both FP16 and FP32 at 6.296 TFLOPS. The TITAN V has a 2:1 ratio, with FP16 at 29.80 TFLOPS and FP32 at 14.90 TFLOPS. This makes the TITAN V exceptionally strong in workloads that can use FP16, such as AI inference and certain scientific computations. The A500 Mobile’s FP32 count is just under half of the TITAN V’s, which aligns with its much lower power envelope.

Specification Differences

The specifications show two cards designed for entirely different physical environments. The RTX A500 Mobile is an IGP, meaning it is designed to be soldered onto a laptop motherboard. It has a slot width of "IGP" and no power connectors. The TITAN V is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width. It requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector and a 600 W power supply.

The memory subsystems are also completely different. The A500 Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN V uses 12 GB of HBM2 with a 3072-bit bus and 651.3 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 6.8x difference in bandwidth, which heavily impacts memory-intensive workloads. The bus interface also differs: the A500 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the TITAN V uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The TITAN V’s display outputs are specified as 1x HDMI 2.0 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the A500 Mobile’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop design.

Clock speeds show the TITAN V running higher in absolute terms. The TITAN V has a base clock of 1200 MHz and a boost of 1455 MHz. The A500 Mobile has a base of 832 MHz and a boost of 1537 MHz. The A500 Mobile’s boost clock is actually higher than the TITAN V’s, but the TITAN V’s much larger execution units make that irrelevant in practice. Memory clocks are listed as 848 MHz for the TITAN V (1696 Mbps effective) and 1500 MHz for the A500 Mobile (12 Gbps effective), but again, the bus width differences overwhelm these figures. The TITAN V was launched with an MSRP of 2,999 USD, while the A500 Mobile has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The TITAN V wins in every scenario where raw performance is the primary requirement. Its 14.90 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 29.80 TFLOPS of FP16 performance make it a formidable tool for high-end compute tasks. The 12 GB of HBM2 memory with 651.3 GB/s bandwidth is ideal for large datasets, scientific simulations, and machine learning training. Its 640 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for AI workloads. The TITAN V also has a massive pixel rate of 139.7 GPixel/s and texture rate of 465.6 GTexel/s, making it stronger for traditional 3D rendering and high-resolution gaming, despite being a workstation-oriented card. The Geekbench results confirm this: it nearly quadruples the A500 Mobile’s scores.

The RTX A500 Mobile wins in scenarios where power efficiency and portability are paramount. With a 30 W TDP and IGP form factor, it can be integrated into thin and light professional laptops. Its 16 RT cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate mean it is more future-proof for ray-traced workloads than the TITAN V, which lacks dedicated RT cores. The A500 Mobile’s 8 nm process and higher transistor density (43.5M per mm²) show a modern design that achieves respectable performance per watt. Its 82nd percentile ranking in the database, despite having only two benchmark entries, indicates it is a competent mobile GPU for its class. The A500 Mobile also supports PCIe 4.0, which offers double the bandwidth per lane of PCIe 3.0, a benefit for data transfer in portable workstations.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA TITAN V is the vastly more powerful GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 73.8% and 75.1%, and its specification sheet dwarfs the A500 Mobile in every compute-relevant metric. Anyone needing maximum FP32 or FP16 throughput, massive memory bandwidth, or large memory capacity should choose the TITAN V, provided they can accommodate its 250 W TDP, dual-slot size, and 600 W PSU requirement. It is a desktop-only solution with no power efficiency pretensions.

The RTX A500 Mobile is not a competitor to the TITAN V; it is a different product category. The data shows it is an end-of-life mobile chip designed for professional laptops where a 30 W TDP and IGP form factor are non-negotiable. Its strengths are portability, modern features like RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate, and a process node that allows decent performance in a tiny power budget. For a mobile workstation user who needs CUDA acceleration on the go, the A500 Mobile is the only one of these two that is physically viable. For anyone building a desktop workstation with high compute demands, the TITAN V is the clear winner based on the recorded benchmarks. Choose based on your physical constraints: if you need a laptop, the A500 Mobile is your only option; if you have a desktop, the TITAN V’s performance justifies its power and size.