AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and NVIDIA RTX A400 represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The benchmark data available shows a single head-to-head comparison, and the results are decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the FirePro W600 manages 6,223. This translates to a 72.8% deficit for the older AMD card, meaning the NVIDIA solution delivers roughly 3.7 times the compute performance in this specific workload. The RTX A400’s nearest rivals in the average benchmark score rankings include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049), placing its average score of 6,078 in a similar performance tier. The FirePro W600’s average score of 6,223 sits close to the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6,210) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA RTX A400 achieves a score of 22,844, a figure that dwarfs the AMD FirePro W600’s 6,223. The delta of -72.8% confirms that the FirePro W600 is operating at less than a third of the RTX A400’s performance level in this metric. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in computational capability.

Beyond this single head-to-head, the broader benchmark suites for the RTX A400 reveal a mixed profile. In DirectX 9 (PassMark), it scores 87, which is its highest legacy API result. Its DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 scores drop significantly to 32 and 37, respectively, while DirectX 12 yields a score of 27. The card performs substantially better in the PassMark G3D test with a score of 5,983, and its GPU Compute score of 2,557 shows a different performance characteristic compared to its OpenCL result. The G2D score of 899 indicates modest 2D performance, which is typical for a workstation-focused card.

The FirePro W600 has no other benchmark entries in the data, so its performance profile is defined solely by that single OpenCL score of 6,223. When placed in context, this score puts it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile. Despite the massive OpenCL gap, their overall percentile rankings are nearly identical, suggesting that the RTX A400’s other benchmark results, particularly the lower DirectX scores, pull its average down significantly. The data shows a card with exceptional compute power in one API but weaker performance in legacy graphics tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is vast. The AMD FirePro W600 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Cape Verde chip, and fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older design packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA107 chip, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This newer node allows for 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The RTX A400 also brings modern features that the FirePro W600 lacks entirely, including 6 RT cores for ray tracing and 24 tensor cores for AI acceleration.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally as well. The FirePro W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A400 doubles the capacity to 4 GB of GDDR6 but uses a narrower 64-bit bus, yet still achieves higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks. The RTX A400’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), whereas the FirePro W600’s memory operates at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Shader configurations also differ: the FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card’s pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s and texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s are both higher than the FirePro W600’s 12.00 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s.

Compute capabilities show a stark contrast. The FirePro W600 delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RTX A400 offers 2.706 TFLOPS. The RTX A400 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature absent from the FirePro W600’s specifications. API support differs as well: the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A400 also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface versus the FirePro W600’s PCIe 3.0 x16, and features 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs compared to 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 on the AMD card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 is the clear winner, scoring 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the AMD FirePro W600’s 6,223, a 72.8% advantage.

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

A: The RTX A400 provides 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro W600 provides 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What modern features does the RTX A400 have that the FirePro W600 lacks?

A: The RTX A400 includes 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores, which are absent from the FirePro W600’s specifications. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the FirePro W600 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient according to the data?

A: The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, which is lower than the FirePro W600’s 75 W TDP, despite delivering significantly higher compute performance.

Q: Are these cards in the same overall performance percentile?

A: Yes, the FirePro W600 is in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A400 is in the 35th percentile, despite the large OpenCL score difference.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 is end-of-life, with a release date in 2012, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 is active, having been released in 2024.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior card. Its OpenCL score of 22,844 versus 6,223 for the AMD FirePro W600 represents a 72.8% lead, and it achieves this while consuming less power (50 W TDP vs 75 W TDP). The RTX A400 also offers twice the memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s). For any modern workstation task requiring OpenCL compute, the RTX A400 is the only rational choice.

However, the FirePro W600 holds a position in the 36th percentile, marginally higher than the RTX A400’s 35th percentile. This suggests that in certain legacy graphics workloads, the older card may not be entirely obsolete. The FirePro W600’s six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs could be an advantage for specific multi-display configurations, whereas the RTX A400 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RTX A400’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 makes it future-proof for software that leverages these modern APIs, while the FirePro W600 is limited to older API versions. The RTX A400’s inclusion of RT and tensor cores adds capabilities for ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated tasks that the FirePro W600 cannot perform at all.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Manufacturer: AMD vs NVIDIA
• Chip: Cape Verde vs GA107
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Ampere
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx000) vs Workstation Ampere (Ax000)
• Process Node: 28 nm vs 8 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs Samsung
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 8,700 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 200 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 43.5M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs 768
• TMUs: 32 vs 24
• RT Cores: None vs 6
• Tensor Cores: None vs 24
• Pixel Rate: 12.00 GPixel/s vs 28.19 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 24.00 GTexel/s vs 42.29 GTexel/s
• FP32: 768.0 GFLOPS vs 2.706 TFLOPS
• FP16: None vs 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 75 W vs 50 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (11_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 111 mm height, 20 mm width vs 163 mm length, 69 mm height
• Production Status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release Date: 2012 vs 2024
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs Quadro Turing
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris vs Workstation Ada

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins decisively in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 22,844 OpenCL score. It also wins on power efficiency (50 W vs 75 W), memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s), and memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB). The RTX A400’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 makes it the choice for modern software stacks, and its RT and tensor cores open up workloads in ray tracing and AI inference that are entirely unavailable on the FirePro W600.

The AMD FirePro W600’s advantages are narrower. It has more TMUs (32 vs 24), which could theoretically benefit certain texture-heavy workloads. It also offers more display outputs (6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), making it potentially more suitable for multi-monitor setups. Its 128-bit memory bus is wider than the RTX A400’s 64-bit bus, though the newer card’s faster memory compensates with higher overall bandwidth. The FirePro W600 also has a slightly higher overall percentile ranking (36th vs 35th), indicating that in the full spectrum of benchmarks, the older card is not universally slower. For legacy applications that rely on older DirectX versions or specific GCN-optimized code, the FirePro W600 may hold its own, but the data overwhelmingly favors the RTX A400 for any performance-critical task.