AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D and NVIDIA RTX A400 occupy opposite ends of the workstation GPU spectrum. The database shows the RTX A400 with a recorded average benchmark score of 6078, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D holds a 50th percentile position, though its benchmark array is empty in the recorded data, meaning direct score comparisons rely on architectural and specification differences rather than matched test results. This analysis separates the two based on the recorded specifications and the RTX A400’s measured performance data.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in scenarios demanding low power draw and compact physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and 163 mm length allow installation in small form factor chassis and passively cooled environments where the Radeon’s 150 W TDP and 241 mm length would not fit. The A400 also provides four display outputs, specifically 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, making it the clear choice for multi-monitor office setups or signage applications. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while narrower than the Radeon’s PCIe 5.0 x16, is sufficient for its modest bandwidth needs.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D wins on raw compute capacity and memory resources. It delivers 24.82 TFLOPS FP32 performance versus the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS, a difference of over 9 times. Its 32 GB GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the A400’s 4 GB and 96.00 GB/s. For workloads like large language model inference, high-resolution rendering, or scientific simulations with large datasets, the Radeon provides the necessary memory capacity and throughput. The Radeon also supports DisplayPort 2.1a, offering newer display connectivity standards compared to the A400’s 1.4a.

The RTX A400 wins in legacy software compatibility through its 24 tensor cores and 6 RT cores. These dedicated hardware units accelerate AI inference and ray tracing operations respectively, features the Radeon lacks entirely as it has no tensor core equivalent and its 48 RT cores are not matched by the A400’s count but serve the same function. The A400’s tensor cores give it a measurable advantage in frameworks optimized for NVIDIA’s CUDA ecosystem, even if the raw FP32 throughput is far lower.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture at a 4 nm TSMC process node. It integrates 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on the older Ampere architecture, fabricated at Samsung’s 8 nm node with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a density of 43.5M per mm². The Radeon’s newer process allows nearly 6 times more transistors in a die that is only 1.8 times larger.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The Radeon runs a 1080 MHz base and 2020 MHz boost clock, while the A400 has a higher base clock at 1417 MHz but a lower boost at 1762 MHz. The Radeon’s memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed, versus the A400’s 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective. These clock differences partially explain the performance gap, but the larger factor is the execution resource count.

Shader configuration separates the two clearly. The Radeon packs 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon’s 48 RT cores handle ray tracing while the A400’s 6 RT cores do the same. The A400’s 24 tensor cores have no counterpart in the Radeon’s specification sheet. Pixel and texture rates reflect these counts: the Radeon achieves 193.9 GPixel/s and 387.8 GTexel/s, while the A400 manages 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s.

Power and interface differences are stark. The Radeon requires a 150 W TDP, a 450 W suggested PSU, and a single 16-pin power connector. The A400 draws 50 W, needs only a 250 W PSU, and requires no power connectors. The Radeon uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Radeon measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 19 mm. The A400 measures 163 mm by 69 mm with no recorded width.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the RTX A400 is a low-power utility card for basic graphics output and light compute tasks. Its benchmark scores show it performing near the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with a 0% delta, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 with a 0.5% delta, and the AMD Radeon 760M with a 1% delta. These rivals all fall within a tight performance band, confirming the A400’s position as an entry-level workstation part. Its 4 GB memory and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth restrict it to small workloads.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D targets professional compute with substantial memory and throughput. The 32 GB GDDR6 pool supports datasets that would exhaust the A400’s 4 GB. The 576.0 GB/s bandwidth moves data 6 times faster. The 24.82 TFLOPS FP32 rate handles compute tasks the A400 cannot approach. The Radeon’s 50th percentile placement, while not exceptional, sits above the A400’s 35th percentile.

Choose the RTX A400 for systems where power budgets are tight, space is limited, or multiple displays are required. Choose the Radeon AI PRO 9600D for actual compute workloads that demand memory capacity and raw throughput. The A400’s tensor cores serve CUDA-specific AI tasks, but the Radeon’s sheer FP32 power makes it the stronger general-purpose compute card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a 150 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP and needs only a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have dedicated AI hardware?

A: Yes, the RTX A400 includes 24 tensor cores. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has no tensor core equivalent in its specifications.

Q: How do their ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 48 RT cores, while the RTX A400 has 6 RT cores.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a single DisplayPort 2.1a output. The RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Which card has a smaller physical footprint?

A: The RTX A400 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall, compared to the Radeon AI PRO 9600D at 241 mm long and 111 mm tall. Both are single-slot cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two cards. However, the RTX A400’s measured scores provide a baseline. Its highest OpenCL score is 22844 and Vulkan score is 22237. In PassMark tests, it scores 87 in DirectX 9, 37 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 10, and 27 in DirectX 12. Its 2D graphics score is 899, 3D graphics score is 5983, and GPU compute score is 2557.

The Radeon AI PRO 9600D’s FP32 throughput of 24.82 TFLOPS versus the A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS indicates a 9.2 times advantage in raw compute. Pixel rate favors the Radeon at 193.9 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors the Radeon at 387.8 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth gives the Radeon a 6 times edge at 576.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

The RTX A400’s nearest rivals in the database all cluster within 1% of its average score. The GeForce MX230 matches at 0% delta, the Quadro P2000 is 0.5% ahead, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 is 0.6% behind, and the Radeon 760M is 1% ahead. This tight grouping confirms the A400 operates in a low-performance tier. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D, with its 50th percentile rank and far superior specifications, sits in a different performance class entirely.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture at 4 nm TSMC process. The RTX A400 uses GA107 on Ampere architecture at 8 nm Samsung process. Transistor counts are 53,900 million versus 8,700 million. Die sizes are 357 mm² versus 200 mm². Transistor densities are 151.0M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Clock speeds differ: the Radeon runs 1080 MHz base and 2020 MHz boost; the A400 runs 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the Radeon and 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the A400. Memory configurations are 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256 bit bus versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Execution resources differ substantially. The Radeon has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores. The A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 RT cores, and 24 tensor cores. Pixel rates are 193.9 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 387.8 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 24.82 TFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The Radeon has a 150 W TDP, 450 W suggested PSU, and one 16-pin power connector. The A400 has a 50 W TDP, 250 W suggested PSU, and no power connectors. The Radeon uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DisplayPort 2.1a for the Radeon and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the A400. The Radeon measures 241 mm by 111 mm by 19 mm. The A400 measures 163 mm by 69 mm with no width recorded. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.