RTX A4500 vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with RTX A4500, including specs and performance data.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
3.04

RTX A4500 outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 1745% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking76645
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data19.39
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreGA102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years ago)23 November 2021 (2 years ago)

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 cores5127168
Core clock speed720 MHz1050 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistorsno data28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data200 Watt
Texture fill rateno data369.6
Floating-point processing powerno data23.65 TFLOPS
ROPsno data96
TMUsno data224
Tensor Coresno data224
Ray Tracing Coresno data56

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data20 GB
Memory bus widthno data320 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data640.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.6

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 HD18
−1567%
300−350
+1567%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1678%
160−170
+1678%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−1700%
90−95
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1614%
120−130
+1614%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−1713%
290−300
+1713%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1639%
400−450
+1639%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−1650%
70−75
+1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−1614%
120−130
+1614%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1669%
230−240
+1669%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1695%
700−750
+1695%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1678%
160−170
+1678%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−1700%
90−95
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1614%
120−130
+1614%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−1713%
290−300
+1713%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1639%
400−450
+1639%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−1650%
70−75
+1650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−1614%
120−130
+1614%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1669%
230−240
+1669%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
−1567%
450−500
+1567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1695%
700−750
+1695%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−1678%
160−170
+1678%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−1614%
120−130
+1614%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−1713%
290−300
+1713%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−1639%
400−450
+1639%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−1669%
230−240
+1669%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1695%
700−750
+1695%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−1614%
120−130
+1614%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−1700%
90−95
+1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−1700%
90−95
+1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1733%
55−60
+1733%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1733%
55−60
+1733%
Hitman 3 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1650%
140−150
+1650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
−1567%
300−310
+1567%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1650%
70−75
+1650%

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and RTX A4500 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A4500 is 1567% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.04 56.10
Recency 14 January 2014 23 November 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm

RTX A4500 has a 1745.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while RTX A4500 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA RTX A4500
RTX A4500

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 190 votes

Rate RTX A4500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.