RTX A2000 vs Radeon Pro W6900X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6900X and RTX A2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W6900X outperforms RTX A2000 by a substantial 30% 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 | 104 | 187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.34 | 32.08 |
| Power efficiency | 10.69 | 35.33 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (4 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,999 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX A2000 has 860% better value for money than Pro W6900X.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 5120 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 1825 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2150 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 688.0 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 22.02 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 48 |
| TMUs | 320 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 80 | 26 |
| L0 Cache | 1.3 MB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 3 MB |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB | no data |
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 | 267 mm | 167 mm |
| Width | Quad-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 4x Thunderbolt | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 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 | 110−120
+22.2%
| 90
−22.2%
|
| 1440p | 55−60
+27.9%
| 43
−27.9%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+29.6%
| 27
−29.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 45.45
−811%
| 4.99
+811%
|
| 1440p | 90.89
−770%
| 10.44
+770%
|
| 4K | 142.83
−759%
| 16.63
+759%
|
- RTX A2000 has 811% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX A2000 has 770% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX A2000 has 759% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6900X and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6900X is 22% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6900X is 28% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6900X is 30% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 41.64 | 32.12 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 70 Watt |
Pro W6900X has a 30% higher aggregate performance score, a 433% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has 329% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6900X is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX A2000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
