GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and AMD Radeon RX 6400 represent two vastly different eras of AMD GPU design, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The FirePro W600 is a GCN 1.0-era professional workstation card from 2012, while the RX 6400 is a modern RDNA 2.0 gaming-oriented part from 2022. Despite the FirePro’s professional pedigree, the data shows a decisive generational shift in performance, features, and efficiency. This analysis examines the benchmark scores, architectural differences, and specification gaps to determine where each card stands.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data provided, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins the only head-to-head comparison available. The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the RX 6400 scoring 32,011 against the FirePro W600’s 6,223, a delta of -80.6% for the older card. This is not a close contest; the RX 6400 is approximately 5.1 times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The FirePro W600 has zero benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, while the RX 6400 claims one.

The use-case split is clear: the RX 6400 is the superior performer for any task leveraging OpenCL compute, which includes modern rendering, physics simulation, and GPU-accelerated applications. The FirePro W600, with its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, is limited to legacy professional workloads that do not require modern API features or high memory throughput. The RX 6400’s broader benchmark suite, covering DirectX 9 through 12, Vulkan, and compute, shows it can handle a wide range of modern applications, whereas the FirePro W600’s single OpenCL score suggests it is only viable for older, compute-light tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². In contrast, the RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer node allows for 5,400 million transistors in a smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 50.5M / mm².

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6400 doubles capacity to 4 GB of GDDR6, but on a narrower 64-bit bus, yet achieves double the bandwidth at 128.0 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks (2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective vs. 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective). The RX 6400 also features 12 ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W600 completely lacks, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the FirePro’s DirectX 12 (11_1). Vulkan support also differs: the RX 6400 supports version 1.4, while the FirePro W600 is limited to 1.2.170.

The RX 6400’s compute resources are dramatically higher: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs), compared to the FirePro W600’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a peak FP32 throughput of 3.565 TFLOPS for the RX 6400 versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro W600. The RX 6400 also supports FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature entirely absent from the older card. The RX 6400’s pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s dwarf the FirePro W600’s 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a story of overwhelming generational dominance. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011 points, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223 points. The deltaPct of -80.6% indicates the FirePro W600 is 80.6% slower than the RX 6400 in this test. To put this in context, the FirePro W600’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (avg score 6,270, delta -0.7%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (avg score 6,282, delta -0.9%), which are all within 1% of its performance. This places the FirePro W600 in a performance tier that is roughly equivalent to entry-level cards from a decade ago, but it is utterly outclassed by the RX 6400.

The RX 6400’s nearest rivals, meanwhile, include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (avg score 6,000, delta 0%) and the AMD FirePro W4100 (avg score 5,987, delta 0.2%). This is interesting: the RX 6400’s average benchmark score is 6,001, which is actually lower than its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,011 because its other benchmarks (like PassMark DirectX 9 at 93 and DirectX 12 at 30) drag down the average. The FirePro W600’s average benchmark score is 6,223, which is higher than the RX 6400’s average of 6,001, despite the RX 6400 winning the OpenCL test by a massive margin. This paradox highlights how the FirePro W600’s single benchmark result is not representative of modern workloads, while the RX 6400’s multi-test suite shows its strengths in compute and its weaknesses in legacy DirectX tests.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 32,011, which is 80.6% higher than the AMD FirePro W600’s score of 6,223.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The RX 6400 has 128.0 GB/s bandwidth via 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s via 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the FirePro W600 support ray tracing?

A: No, the FirePro W600 has no ray tracing cores, while the RX 6400 includes 12.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX 6400 has a density of 50.5M / mm² (5,400 million transistors on 107 mm²), while the FirePro W600 has 12.2M / mm² (1,500 million transistors on 123 mm²).

Q: Which card supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the FirePro W600 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W, which is lower than the FirePro W600’s 75 W, despite offering significantly higher performance.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Process Node: 6 nm (RX 6400) vs. 28 nm (FirePro W600)
• Transistors: 5,400 million vs. 1,500 million
• Die Size: 107 mm² vs. 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 50.5M / mm² vs. 12.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1923 MHz (RX 6400) vs. none listed
• Boost Clock: 2321 MHz (RX 6400) vs. none listed
• Game Clock: 2039 MHz (RX 6400) vs. none listed
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective vs. 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs. 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs. GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs. 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 128.0 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 vs. 512
• TMUs: 48 vs. 32
• ROPs: 32 vs. 16
• Ray Tracing Cores: 12 vs. none
• Pixel Rate: 74.27 GPixel/s vs. 12.00 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 111.4 GTexel/s vs. 24.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 3.565 TFLOPS vs. 768.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) vs. none
• TDP: 53 W vs. 75 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs. 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs. 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs. 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2022-01-18 vs. 2012-06-12
• Launch MSRP: 159 USD vs. 599 USD

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon RX 6400 for virtually any modern use case. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,011 is over five times higher than the FirePro W600’s 6,223, and it offers superior memory bandwidth, a smaller process node, higher transistor density, and support for ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. The RX 6400 also consumes less power (53 W vs. 75 W) despite delivering dramatically higher compute throughput. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory is double the FirePro W600’s 2 GB, making it better suited for modern textures and datasets.

The FirePro W600’s only advantage lies in its multi-display output capability, 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus the RX 6400’s single HDMI and single DisplayPort, which could be relevant for legacy multi-monitor professional setups. However, its 36th percentile ranking among all GPUs (versus the RX 6400’s 35th) shows they are statistically comparable in overall performance distribution, but the FirePro achieves this with a much older architecture. Its 599 USD launch MSRP was considerably higher than the RX 6400’s 159 USD, but pricing is not a factor in current performance analysis.

For users seeking a modern, efficient card with strong compute and gaming capabilities, the RX 6400 is the clear choice. For those needing a legacy workstation card with multiple DisplayPort outputs and minimal power draw, the FirePro W600 remains functional, but its performance is severely limited by its decade-old GCN architecture and lack of modern API support. The benchmark results indicate that the RX 6400 is the superior investment for any task requiring contemporary GPU acceleration.