RTX A2000 vs Radeon Pro VII
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro VII and RTX A2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro VII outperforms RTX A2000 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 190 | 196 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.83 | 29.45 |
| Power efficiency | 10.12 | 35.64 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 May 2020 (6 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,899 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX A2000 has 405% better value for money than Pro VII.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3840 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1700 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 408.0 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.06 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 240 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 3 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 305 mm | 167 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1024 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 90−95
+0%
| 90 |
| 1440p | 40−45 | 43
+7.5%
|
| 4K | 27−30
+0%
| 27 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 21.10 | 4.99
+76.4%
|
| 1440p | 47.48 | 10.44
+78%
|
| 4K | 70.33 | 16.63
+76.4%
|
- RTX A2000 has 76% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX A2000 has 78% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX A2000 has 76% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 80−85 | 80−85 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 108 | 108 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Valorant | 200−210 | 200−210 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 98 | 98 |
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129 | 129 |
| Metro Exodus | 60 | 60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117 | 117 |
| Valorant | 200−210 | 200−210 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 91 | 91 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64 | 64 |
| Valorant | 200−210 | 200−210 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150 | 140−150 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58 | 58 |
| Metro Exodus | 34 | 34 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 230−240 | 230−240 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Far Cry 5 | 61 | 61 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47 | 47 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85 | 80−85 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56 | 56 |
| Metro Exodus | 20 | 20 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40 | 40 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30 | 30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45 | 40−45 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 40−45 |
This is how Pro VII and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 8% faster in 1440p
- A tie in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.47 | 32.02 |
| Recency | 13 May 2020 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 70 Watt |
Pro VII has a 1% higher aggregate performance score, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 13% more advanced lithography process.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 72% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro VII and RTX A2000.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
