AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon RX 6400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 and AMD FirePro W4100 represent two very different eras of AMD graphics, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear generational gap: the RX 6400 wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively, yet the FirePro W4100 remains surprisingly close in overall average benchmark score. This creates an interesting profile where the newer card dominates modern API workloads, but the older workstation card holds its ground in aggregate scoring due to its professional lineage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are starkly one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points against the FirePro W4100’s 5,478 points. That is a 484.4% advantage—the RX 6400 delivers nearly six times the compute throughput in this general-purpose GPU test. This is not a marginal win; it is a complete overhaul of compute capability, reflecting the shift from 28 nm GCN 1.0 to 6 nm RDNA 2.0.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a smaller margin. The RX 6400 posts 16,372 points versus 6,496 points for the W4100, a 152% lead. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the RX 6400’s RDNA 2.0 architecture was designed for it from the ground up. The W4100’s GCN 1.0 architecture supports Vulkan 1.2.170, but its implementation clearly cannot match the newer hardware’s efficiency. In both tests, the winner is the same, and the magnitude of the victory is substantial.

What is perhaps more telling is how these scores translate into the average benchmark context. The RX 6400’s average benchmark score is 6,001, while the W4100 sits at 5,987. The delta between them is a mere 0.2%, with the RX 6400 only marginally ahead. This near-parity in average score, despite the massive OpenCL and Vulkan gaps, suggests the RX 6400 has other benchmark results that drag its average down. Its PassMark DirectX 12 score is just 30, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 176—numbers that reflect the RX 6400’s limited 64-bit memory bus and 4 GB VRAM in certain workloads.

The FirePro W4100, by contrast, has no such low-scoring benchmarks in the data, only its Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results. This asymmetry means the average score is not directly comparable as a performance metric; it is a statistical artifact. The RX 6400 wins cleanly where the tests are modern and compute-heavy, while the W4100’s average is buoyed by missing data points.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 6400 wins decisively in every direct comparison available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,011 is in a different league from the W4100’s 5,478, making it the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads—anything from physics simulations to data-parallel tasks. The Vulkan result reinforces this: 16,372 versus 6,496 means the RX 6400 is also the superior pick for Vulkan-based rendering and modern game engines.

The FirePro W4100, however, has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its 0 wins versus 2 wins for the RX 6400 is unambiguous. Where the W4100 might still appeal is in its intended professional environment—it offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, allowing multi-monitor workstation setups that the RX 6400’s single HDMI 2.1 and single DisplayPort 1.4a cannot match. For a legacy workstation running older OpenGL workloads, the W4100’s GCN 1.0 architecture with 512 shading units and 16 ROPs may still be functional, but the performance data does not favor it.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The RX 6400 sits at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4100 is at the 34th percentile. That 1-percentile gap is negligible in the grand scheme, but it masks the fact that the RX 6400 is a modern part with far higher peak performance in the tests that matter today.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is the core of their performance disparity. The Radeon RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4100 uses the older Cape Verde chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process also at TSMC. Its 1,500 million transistors occupy a larger 123 mm² die, with a density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter.

This process advantage translates directly into clock speeds. The RX 6400 runs at a 1,923 MHz base and 2,321 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2,039 MHz. The W4100 has no listed base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), versus the RX 6400’s 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The RX 6400 also introduces dedicated ray tracing cores—12 of them—which the W4100 lacks entirely. This is a feature differentiation that goes beyond raw throughput; the RX 6400 is built for real-time ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W4100 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1).

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but only achieves 64.00 GB/s. The RX 6400’s higher bandwidth, despite the narrower bus, is a direct result of faster memory clocks.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two cards are numerous and significant. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, against the W4100’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the RX 6400 a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s, while the W4100 manages only 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.565 TFLOPS for the RX 6400 versus 645.1 GFLOPS for the W4100, a more than 5.5x difference.

The RX 6400 also supports FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the W4100 lacks entirely. The bus interface differs: the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16—the newer card trades lanes for bandwidth efficiency. Power consumption is close, with the RX 6400 at 53 W TDP and the W4100 at 50 W, both single-slot with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 6400’s process advantage delivers far more performance at nearly the same power draw.

Display outputs are a notable split. The W4100 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the RX 6400 offers one HDMI 2.1 and one DisplayPort 1.4a. The W4100 physically measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, while the RX 6400’s dimensions are not listed. The RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18, while the W4100 predates it by over seven years, releasing on 2014-08-12.

FAQ

Q: Is the Radeon RX 6400 faster than the FirePro W4100 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes, in the two head-to-head tests available, the RX 6400 wins both. It scores 32,011 versus 5,478 in Geekbench OpenCL (484.4% ahead) and 16,372 versus 6,496 in Geekbench Vulkan (152% ahead).

Q: Why are their average benchmark scores so close if the RX 6400 wins so decisively?

A: The RX 6400’s average score of 6,001 is pulled down by low results in other tests, such as a PassMark DirectX 12 score of 30 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 176. The W4100 only has two benchmark results in the data, so its average of 5,987 is based on a smaller, more favorable sample.

Q: Can the FirePro W4100 handle modern APIs?

A: It supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, but its GCN 1.0 architecture lacks the ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate features of the RX 6400. Its Vulkan score of 6,496 is less than half the RX 6400’s.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Radeon RX 6400 has 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its 4 GB GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro W4100 has 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 6400 doubles the bandwidth despite the narrower bus.

Q: Are there any advantages to the FirePro W4100’s design?

A: The W4100 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling higher multi-monitor configurations than the RX 6400’s single HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4a. It also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which may be more compatible with older motherboards.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The RX 6400 has a density of 50.5 million transistors per mm² on its 6 nm process, while the W4100 has 12.2 million per mm² on its 28 nm process. This is a 4x density advantage for the newer card.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for almost any modern workload: the Radeon RX 6400. Its 484.4% lead in OpenCL and 152% lead in Vulkan are not marginal improvements; they represent a fundamental shift in compute capability. The RX 6400’s 12 ray tracing cores, 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 performance, and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth make it the only sensible option for gaming, modern rendering, or any DirectX 12 Ultimate workload. Its 53 W TDP also means it slots into the same power envelope as the W4100, offering massive performance gains without additional power requirements.

The FirePro W4100’s only practical edge is its four mini-DisplayPort outputs, which could matter for a legacy multi-monitor workstation that relies on older DisplayPort 1.2 connections. Its 2 GB VRAM and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are severely limiting by modern standards, and its GCN 1.0 architecture cannot leverage modern APIs effectively. For someone maintaining an existing 2014-era professional setup, the W4100 may still function, but the data shows no performance scenario where it wins.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the RX 6400 for nearly everything, unless the specific need for four DisplayPort outputs on a single-slot, 50 W card overrides the massive performance deficit. The RX 6400’s launch MSRP is 159 USD, and it delivers modern features and performance that the W4100 cannot approach. The W4100 remains a relic of its time, outperformed in every benchmark test available by a card that is both newer and more capable.