Indeed not. Which is why, when a single one of the khandhas is isolated in contast with the others, it is viññāṇa, not rūpa.
Obviously this is a significant parallel between the sutta treatment of nāma and the three immaterial khandhas apart from viññāṇa—and it is not the only one.
But similarity is one thing, identity another. To equate them is to carry out the Abhidhamma project, seeing all dhammic terms as interchangeable concepts with fixed, absolute meanings. This is the first step on the dark path to the sabhāvavāda.
Nāma has a distinct contextual nuance and dialectical force which differs significantly from the way the khandhas are treated. For a start, the khandhas are never said to be dependent on adhivacanasamphassa. Furthermore, the historical dialogue on viññāṇa and nāmarūpa is specifically responding to Upanishadic ideas, whereas the khandhas are more general, and seem to be designed to encompass all the sectarian philosophies.