NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 leads with an average benchmark score of 165,217, compared to 135,218 for the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation. That is a 22.2% gap in the aggregate.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The RTX A5500 delivers 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 (1:1) performance, while the RTX 4000 Ada offers 26.73 TFLOPS in both. The A5500 holds a 27.6% advantage in peak floating-point throughput.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The RTX A5500 features 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 Ada has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 360.0 GB/s bandwidth — half the bus width and less than half the bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient per the data?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada has a 130 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the RTX A5500 draws 230 W with a 550 W suggested PSU. Despite the lower power envelope, the RTX 4000 Ada still achieves 95th percentile performance versus the A5500's 97th percentile.

Q: Are there architectural generation differences?

A: Yes. The RTX A5500 uses the Ampere architecture (GA102 chip, 8 nm Samsung process), while the RTX 4000 Ada uses Ada Lovelace (AD104 chip, 5 nm TSMC process). The Ada card packs more transistors (35,800 million vs 28,300 million) on a smaller die (294 mm² vs 628 mm²).

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX A5500 is end-of-life with a release date of March 2022, while the RTX 4000 Ada is active and was released in August 2023 — a 17-month gap between launches.

# Where Each One Wins

The data clearly favors the RTX A5500 in every benchmark category recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, the A5500 scores 174,637 versus 146,593 for the RTX 4000 Ada — a 19.1% lead. The Vulkan test shows an even larger margin: 155,797 versus 123,842, a 25.8% advantage for the A5500. With two wins out of two head-to-head tests, the A5500 is the definitive performance winner in this comparison.

However, the RTX 4000 Ada wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 130 W TDP is 43.5% lower than the A5500's 230 W, and its single-slot design contrasts with the A5500's dual-slot footprint. The RTX 4000 Ada is also shorter at 245 mm versus 267 mm, making it easier to fit in compact chassis. For environments where space and power are constrained, the Ada card is the practical choice.

The RTX A5500 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth decisively. With 24 GB versus 20 GB, it offers 20% more capacity. The bandwidth gap is enormous: 768.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s — more than double. For workload datasets that exceed 20 GB, the A5500 is the only viable option.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations. The RTX A5500 is built on Ampere, NVIDIA's workstation architecture from 2022, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The chip is GA102, a large design measuring 628 mm² with 28,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 45.1M per mm².

The RTX 4000 Ada uses the newer Ada Lovelace architecture on TSMC's 5 nm node. The AD104 chip is dramatically smaller at 294 mm² yet packs 35,800 million transistors — a density of 121.8M per mm², which is 2.7 times denser than the Ampere chip. This density advantage explains how the Ada card achieves higher clock speeds (1500 MHz base, 2175 MHz boost versus 1080 MHz base, 1665 MHz boost) while consuming less power.

Core configuration differs substantially. The A5500 has 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 80 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. The RTX 4000 Ada has 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The A5500 has 66.7% more shading units, 66.7% more TMUs, 50% more ROPs, and 66.7% more RT and tensor cores.

Despite the Ada card's higher clock speeds, the A5500's massive core count wins on throughput. Pixel rate is 159.8 GPixel/s versus 139.2 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 532.8 GTexel/s versus 417.6 GTexel/s. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both have four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

# Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, per the data:

• Process node: 8 nm (Samsung) versus 5 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 28,300 million versus 35,800 million
• Die size: 628 mm² versus 294 mm²
• Transistor density: 45.1M / mm² versus 121.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 1080 MHz versus 1500 MHz
• Boost clock: 1665 MHz versus 2175 MHz
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 24 GB versus 20 GB
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 160 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 768.0 GB/s versus 360.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 10,240 versus 6,144
• TMUs: 320 versus 192
• ROPs: 96 versus 64
• RT cores: 80 versus 48
• Tensor cores: 320 versus 192
• Pixel rate: 159.8 GPixel/s versus 139.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 532.8 GTexel/s versus 417.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 34.10 TFLOPS versus 26.73 TFLOPS
• FP16: 34.10 TFLOPS versus 26.73 TFLOPS
• TDP: 230 W versus 130 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Power connector: 1x 8-pin versus 1x 16-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 300 W
• Length: 267 mm versus 245 mm
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: March 2022 versus August 2023

The cards share identical bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a), API support, and height (112 mm).

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the RTX A5500 at 174,637 versus 146,593 for the RTX 4000 Ada. This 19.1% advantage aligns with the A5500's 27.6% lead in FP32 compute and its 2.1x memory bandwidth advantage. The OpenCL workload benefits from the A5500's larger core count and wider memory bus.

The Vulkan test reveals an even larger gap: 155,797 versus 123,842, a 25.8% delta. Vulkan workloads are often more sensitive to geometry throughput and memory subsystem performance, both of which favor the A5500 given its 532.8 GTexel/s fill rate and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Ada card's higher boost clock of 2175 MHz cannot compensate for having 40% fewer shading units and less than half the memory bandwidth.

In the nearestRivals context, the A5500's average score of 165,217 places it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894) and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (168,574) by 2% and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094) by 0.5%. The RTX 4000 Ada's 135,218 average score sits within 0.9% of its nearest rivals — the NVIDIA A10M (135,230), AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396), AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774), and AMD Radeon PRO V620 (136,472) — with deltas ranging from 0% to -0.9%.

The percentile rankings confirm the hierarchy: the A5500 sits at the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 4000 Ada sits at the 95th. This two-percentile gap represents the performance difference between the cards in the broader GPU landscape.

# The Verdict

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the clear performance winner in every measured benchmark. It leads by 19.1% in OpenCL and 25.8% in Vulkan, with an average benchmark score 22.2% higher. Its 24 GB memory capacity, 768.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 34.10 TFLOPS FP32 compute make it the superior choice for compute-intensive workloads, large datasets, and memory-bandwidth-bound applications. The 97th percentile ranking versus the RTX 4000 Ada's 95th percentile reinforces this verdict.

The RTX 4000 Ada wins on efficiency and physical design. Its 130 W TDP and single-slot form factor make it suitable for dense workstation configurations where power and space are limited. The 5 nm TSMC process delivers 2.7x higher transistor density, enabling 45% higher boost clocks (2175 MHz versus 1665 MHz) within a 43.5% lower power budget. For users prioritizing compactness and low power draw over raw performance, the Ada card is the rational pick.

The choice ultimately depends on workload requirements. Data suggests that compute-heavy users should choose the RTX A5500, which is 19-26% faster in the recorded benchmarks and offers 20% more memory capacity with 2.1x the bandwidth. Users with power constraints, limited chassis space, or single-slot requirements should consider the RTX 4000 Ada, which delivers 95th-percentile performance in a much smaller envelope. The A5500's end-of-life status versus the Ada card's active production status may also factor into purchasing decisions, but the benchmark data unequivocally favors the Ampere-based card for raw performance.