NVIDIA RTX A5500 vs NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear overall victor, but the margin varies dramatically depending on the workload. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 scores 174,637, while the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB manages 87,454. That is a 99.7% delta, meaning the A5500 delivers nearly double the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The result is emphatic and reflects the generational gulf between the two architectures in general-purpose compute.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the RTX A5500 scores 155,797 against the Tesla V100's 141,336, a 10.2% advantage. While still a win for the A5500, the gap is far narrower than in OpenCL. This suggests that the V100's older Volta architecture remains competitive in graphics-oriented APIs, likely due to its substantial memory bandwidth and high pixel throughput, even though it lacks dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RTX A5500's average benchmark score is 165,217, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The Tesla V100's average is 114,395, which still lands in the 95th percentile. Both are high-end parts by this measure, but the A5500 holds a 44.4% lead in average score—a figure derived from the two shared tests, not an exhaustive suite. The A5500 wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in this comparison. The V100's best showing is in Vulkan, where its deficit is single-digit percentage points, indicating that its fixed-function geometry and rasterization units are not as outdated as its compute pipeline might suggest.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by a full architectural generation. The RTX A5500 is built on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA102 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The Tesla V100 uses the Volta architecture with the GV100 chip, produced on TSMC's 12 nm process. The process node difference is significant: the A5500 packs 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The V100 has 21,100 million transistors on a much larger 815 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 25.9 million per square millimeter. The A5500's denser design is a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

Core counts diverge sharply. The A5500 has 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. It also includes 80 dedicated ray tracing cores and 320 tensor cores. The V100 has 5,120 shading units—exactly half—but the same 320 TMUs and a higher ROP count at 128. The V100 does not have any ray tracing cores, a feature that simply did not exist in the Volta architecture. Its tensor core count is 640, double that of the A5500, reflecting Volta's focus on early AI workloads, though these are first-generation tensor cores compared to Ampere's third-generation units.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divide. The A5500 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The V100 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 897.0 GB/s. Despite having less capacity, the V100 has higher bandwidth due to the wide HBM2 interface. Clock speeds also differ: the A5500 runs at 1080 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost, while the V100 runs higher at 1312 MHz base and 1530 MHz boost. The A5500's higher boost clock, combined with its massive core count, explains its FP32 advantage: 34.10 TFLOPS versus 15.67 TFLOPS. However, in FP16, the V100 reaches 31.33 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio, close to the A5500's 34.10 TFLOPS, which achieves this at a 1:1 ratio.

# Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 is the outright winner in both benchmarked tests, but the nature of its victories points to specific use cases. In OpenCL, a test that heavily exercises raw compute and memory subsystem throughput, the A5500 dominates with a 99.7% lead. This workload benefits from the A5500's 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and its 10,240 shading units. For scientific simulation, general-purpose GPU computing, or any task that relies on single-precision floating-point math, the A5500 is the clear choice. Its 24 GB of VRAM also provides headroom for larger datasets than the V100's 16 GB, even if the V100 has higher peak bandwidth.

The Vulkan result narrows the gap to 10.2%, indicating that the V100 remains respectable in graphics-centric tasks. The V100's 128 ROPs and 195.8 GPixel/s pixel rate exceed the A5500's 96 ROPs and 159.8 GPixel/s. This suggests that for pure rasterization throughput, the older card has an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. However, the A5500 counters with 80 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the V100 cannot perform at all. Any modern graphics workload that incorporates ray-traced effects will run on the A5500, while the V100 would need to rely on software fallbacks or omit such effects entirely. The V100 also has no display outputs, making it unsuitable as a primary graphics card for a workstation, whereas the A5500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

For AI and machine learning inference, the picture is nuanced. The V100 has double the tensor core count at 640, and its FP16 performance is nearly on par with the A5500 (31.33 vs 34.10 TFLOPS). However, the A5500's tensor cores are from a newer generation, which typically offers improved efficiency and support for newer precision formats. The A5500's higher average benchmark score and 97th percentile ranking versus the V100's 95th percentile reinforce its overall superiority, but the V100's 897 GB/s bandwidth could still give it an edge in memory-bandwidth-bound inference workloads where the A5500's 768 GB/s might bottleneck.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A5500 | NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | Volta |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 1312 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus | 384 bit | 4096 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 897.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10,240 | 5,120 |

| ROPs | 96 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 80 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | 640 |

| Pixel Rate | 159.8 GPixel/s | 195.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 532.8 GTexel/s | 489.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 34.10 TFLOPS | 15.67 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) | 31.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | 2017-06-20 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Tesla Pascal |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | Tesla Turing |

The A5500 is a dual-slot workstation card with a 267 mm length and 112 mm height, while the V100 is an SXM module with no specified dimensions, designed for server chassis with dedicated power delivery. The V100 has no power connectors, drawing power from the SXM socket, while the A5500 requires a single 8-pin connector. The A5500 supports PCIe 4.0 x16, double the bandwidth of the V100's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which matters for data transfer to and from the host system.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500, with 34.10 TFLOPS, is more than double the Tesla V100's 15.67 TFLOPS. This reflects the A5500's newer Ampere architecture and higher shading unit count of 10,240 versus 5,120.

Q: Does the Tesla V100 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The V100's HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus delivers 897.0 GB/s, which is 16.8% higher than the A5500's 768.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. The V100 also has a higher pixel rate of 195.8 GPixel/s versus 159.8 GPixel/s.

Q: Can the Tesla V100 handle ray tracing workloads?

A: No. The V100 has no ray tracing cores, as the Volta architecture predates hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The RTX A5500 includes 80 RT cores, enabling DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) features that the V100's DirectX 12 (12_1) support cannot match.

Q: Why is the OpenCL score difference so much larger than the Vulkan difference?

A: In OpenCL, the A5500 leads by 99.7% (174,637 vs 87,454), which aligns with its 2.2x FP32 throughput advantage. In Vulkan, the lead narrows to 10.2% (155,797 vs 141,336), likely because the V100's higher ROP count and pixel rate help close the gap in graphics-specific operations.

Q: Which GPU is better for a workstation with a display?

A: The RTX A5500 is the only option, as it provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Tesla V100 has no display outputs and is intended for compute-only server deployments where a separate graphics adapter handles display duties.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The A5500 has an average benchmark score of 165,217 and sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The V100 averages 114,395 and sits in the 95th percentile. This places both in the top tier of hardware, but the A5500 holds a 44.4% lead in average score across the two shared tests.