AMD FirePro S10000 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 records an average benchmark score of 37157, while the AMD FirePro S10000 scores 32388. The W6400 sits at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the S10000's 77th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35027 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14.4% higher than the FirePro S10000's 30631. This represents a clear lead for the newer architecture.

Q: What about Vulkan performance differences?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6400 achieves 39286 versus 34145 for the S10000. The delta is 15.1%, making the Vulkan gap slightly wider than the OpenCL gap.

Q: Which GPU draws more power from the system?

A: The FirePro S10000 has a TDP of 375 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors, while the Radeon PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W and needs no power connectors. The S10000 also suggests a 750 W power supply versus 250 W for the W6400.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The S10000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus with 240.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The database lists both as end-of-life products. The FirePro S10000 was released in 2012, while the Radeon PRO W6400 came out in 2022.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro S10000 uses GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tahiti chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This process difference is substantial: the W6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a density of 50.5M transistors per mm². The S10000 contains 4,313 million transistors across a 352 mm² die, resulting in just 12.3M transistors per mm².

The architectural divide appears in feature support. The W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6. The S10000 has no ray tracing cores and only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The W6400's RDNA 2.0 design also enables FP16 compute at 7.130 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the S10000 lists no FP16 capability.

Clock speeds reveal another generation gap. The W6400 runs at a base of 2039 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz, while the S10000 operates at 825 MHz base and 950 MHz boost. The W6400's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, versus 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective for the S10000.

The interface also differs: the W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, whereas the S10000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are limited on both, but the W6400 offers two DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the S10000 provides one DVI and four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the Radeon PRO W6400 winning both benchmark tests in this comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6400 posts 35027 against the S10000's 30631. That is a 14.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6400 scores 39286 versus 34145, a 15.1% lead.

These results align with the cards' positions relative to other GPUs in the database. The W6400's average score of 37157 places it nearly level with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507, delta of -0.9%) and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628, delta of -1.3%). It also edges past the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36530, delta of +1.7%). The S10000's average of 32388 sits close to the AMD Radeon RX 7900 GRE (32456, delta of -0.2%) and the AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (32540, delta of -0.5%).

The interesting nuance is that the S10000 actually has more raw hardware in some respects. It packs 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and a 384-bit memory bus. The W6400 counters with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and a 64-bit bus. Despite the S10000's larger compute resource count, the W6400's higher clocks and newer architecture deliver superior measured performance. The W6400's pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s for the S10000, and its texture rate reaches 111.4 GTexel/s versus 106.4 GTexel/s.

The FP32 throughput is close: the W6400 achieves 3.565 TFLOPS, while the S10000 manages 3.405 TFLOPS. That difference is only 4.7%, yet the benchmark scores show a much larger gap. This suggests that the newer architecture extracts more real-world performance from similar peak compute, particularly in Vulkan where the W6400's lead expands to 15.1%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | AMD FirePro S10000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 950 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 240.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 48 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 106.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 3.405 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 50 W | 375 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 750 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2012-11-11 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 3,599 USD |

The Verdict

The data points decisively to the Radeon PRO W6400 as the superior performer in this matchup. It wins both recorded benchmarks, holds a higher percentile ranking (80th versus 77th), and does so while consuming a fraction of the power. The 50 W TDP versus 375 W is not just a specification difference; it changes the entire deployment profile. The W6400 needs no power connectors and a 250 W PSU suggestion, while the S10000 requires dual 8-pin connectors and a 750 W PSU.

The S10000's advantages are limited to memory bandwidth and raw resource counts. Its 240.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the W6400's 128.0 GB/s, and its 1792 shading units more than double the W6400's 768. However, these specifications do not translate into benchmark victories. The measured performance shows the W6400 ahead by 14.4% in OpenCL and 15.1% in Vulkan.

The architectural gap explains this inversion. A 6 nm RDNA 2.0 design with 50.5M transistors per mm² and 12 ray tracing cores represents a fundamentally newer approach than a 28 nm GCN 1.0 chip with 12.3M transistors per mm². The W6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the S10000 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

For modern workloads, the W6400 is the rational choice. Its FP16 support at 7.130 TFLOPS opens compute paths unavailable on the S10000. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors simplify installation. The S10000 remains interesting only for scenarios requiring its 240.0 GB/s bandwidth or its 384-bit memory bus, though the benchmark data does not show those translating into wins.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W6400 wins in every measured category from the database. It takes Geekbench OpenCL with 35027 versus 30631 and Geekbench Vulkan with 39286 versus 34145. Its 80th percentile standing versus the S10000's 77th percentile reinforces this. The W6400 also leads in pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s), texture rate (111.4 GTexel/s versus 106.4 GTexel/s), FP32 (3.565 TFLOPS versus 3.405 TFLOPS), and adds FP16 capability entirely absent from the S10000.

The S10000 wins on paper in memory bandwidth (240.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s), shading units (1792 versus 768), TMUs (112 versus 48), and memory bus width (384 bit versus 64 bit). It also offers more display outputs in total, with five connections (one DVI plus four mini-DisplayPort) versus two DisplayPort outputs on the W6400. The S10000's 3 GB of memory is smaller than the W6400's 4 GB, so the older card cannot claim a capacity advantage.

In practical terms, the W6400 suits environments where power efficiency, modern API support, and smaller physical footprint matter. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot profile allow deployment in compact systems. The S10000's 375 W TDP and dual-slot, 305 mm length (12 inches) design restrict it to larger chassis with robust power delivery. The S10000 also carries a 3,599 USD launch MSRP, while the W6400 has no listed launch price in the database.

Given the benchmark results, any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan performance favors the W6400. The S10000's remaining justification would be applications that specifically need its higher bandwidth or greater shading unit count, but the recorded data does not validate that approach. The W6400's wins across both tests, combined with its modern feature set and dramatically lower power draw, make it the stronger pick for almost all use cases.