Component comparison

GeForce RTX 4090 vs RTX A500

GeForce RTX 4090 vs RTX A500 โ€” detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.

Advantages

A GeForce RTX 4090
  • + Release year (+2)
  • + VRAM (GB) (+12 GB)
  • + Memory clock (MHz) (+500 MHz)
  • + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+922 GB/s)
  • + Memory bus (bit) (+320 bit)
  • + TGP / TDP (W) (+60 W)
  • + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
  • + CUDA cores (+14336)
  • + TMUs (+448)
  • + ROPs (+144)
  • + RT cores (+112)
  • + Tensor cores (+448)
  • + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+75.33 TFLOPS)
  • + Energy efficiency (+21.6)
  • + PassMark (overall) (+20509)
  • + Normalized score (+59.2)
B RTX A500

Components are close in specs

Detailed spec comparison

Spec Component A
GeForce RTX 4090
Component B
RTX A500
Release year 2023 (+2) 2021
VRAM (GB) 16 GB (+12 GB) 4 GB
Memory type GDDR6 GDDR6
Memory clock (MHz) 2250 MHz (+500 MHz) 1750 MHz
Bandwidth (GB/s) 1034 GB/s (+922 GB/s) 112 GB/s
Memory bus (bit) 384 bit (+320 bit) 64 bit
TGP / TDP (W) 120 W (+60 W) 60 W
Lithography (nm) 4 nm (-4 nm) 8 nm
Transistors (M) 76,300M โ€”
Die size (mmยฒ) 609 mmยฒ โ€”
Base clock (MHz) โ€” โ€”
Boost clock (MHz) โ€” 1537 MHz
CUDA cores 16,384 (+14336) 2,048
TMUs 512 (+448) 64
ROPs 176 (+144) 32
RT cores 128 (+112) 16
Tensor cores 512 (+448) 64
FP32 performance (TFLOPS) 82.58 TFLOPS (+75.33 TFLOPS) 7.25 TFLOPS
Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) 443.50 GPixel/s โ€”
Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) 1290.00 GTexel/s โ€”
Energy efficiency 41.9 (+21.6) 20.2
PassMark (overall) 27,047 (+20509) 6,538
3DMark Time Spy 21,251 โ€”
3DMark Fire Strike 46,191 โ€”
Geekbench OpenCL โ€” โ€”
Geekbench Vulkan โ€” โ€”
Normalized score 75.0 (+59.2) 15.8

Only in component A

ray_tracing

In both

CUDA DLSS ReBAR

FPS in games (1080p)

Game GeForce RTX 4090 RTX A500 Delta
CS:GO 240 FPS 240 FPS โ‰ˆ
GTA V 140 FPS 140 FPS โ‰ˆ
Overwatch 240 FPS 240 FPS โ‰ˆ
PUBG 140 FPS 140 FPS โ‰ˆ

Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.

Based on the comparison: GeForce RTX 4090 wins 16 of the comparable criteria. The choice depends on your use case.

๐Ÿค” How to choose

Universal advice for any use case.

  • Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) โ†” price (median 385.1).
  • Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) โ†” overall performance (median 49.8).
  • Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) โ†” battery life (median 2.8).

Reviews & specs

Your journey

based on your activity
Refining requirements
You're refining โ€” compare finalists head-to-head.
Focused on
Performance
20%
Mobility
20%
Refine your picks
An anonymous cookie on your device โ€” no account, no personal data. Viewed models, compares and picker answers shape this panel.
Delete profile? Compare list stays.