AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT takes both recorded benchmark victories, but the margin of those wins tells two very different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 5500 XT posts a score of 41,772 against the PRO W6400's 35,027, a decisive 19.3% advantage. This is the workload where the older card clearly separates itself from its successor. In Geekbench Vulkan, however, the gap nearly vanishes: the 5500 XT scores 39,601 versus 39,286 for the PRO W6400, a mere 0.8% difference. For Vulkan-based tasks, the two cards are effectively interchangeable in the recorded data.

The PRO W6400 wins no benchmark in this comparison. Its strongest showing comes in Vulkan, where it nearly matches the 5500 XT despite having half the memory, half the shading units, and a narrower memory bus. That result suggests the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture extracts substantially more efficiency from its smaller hardware configuration. The OpenCL result, by contrast, shows the 5500 XT's raw resource advantage dominating: more shading units, more texture units, double the memory bandwidth, and double the VRAM capacity all contribute to that 19.3% lead.

Looking at aggregate positioning, the 5500 XT sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the PRO W6400 sits at the 80th. The 5500 XT's average benchmark score across all tests is 45,384, placing it among rivals like the Intel Arc A730M (45,592, a 0.5% gap) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (44,795, a 1.3% gap). The PRO W6400's average of 37,157 aligns with the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, a 0.9% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, a 1.3% difference). The percentile gap of 4 points and the average score gap of roughly 8,200 points reflect the 5500 XT's higher overall throughput ceiling.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different RDNA generations. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. This process shrink allows the PRO W6400 to pack 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The 5500 XT, by comparison, packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding 40.5M per mm². The newer process node gives the PRO W6400 a density advantage of roughly 25%.

The compute configurations diverge significantly. The 5500 XT carries 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation pipelines. The PRO W6400 halves the shading units to 768, halves the texture units to 48, but keeps the same 32 ROPs. The 5500 XT's raw throughput numbers reflect this: 5.398 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.80 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The PRO W6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.130 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The 5500 XT leads in raw compute by roughly 51% in FP32 and 51% in FP16.

The PRO W6400 introduces 12 ray accelerators, hardware that the 5500 XT lacks entirely. This is a generational feature addition: RDNA 2.0 includes dedicated ray tracing hardware while RDNA 1.0 does not. The API support reflects this difference. The PRO W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the 5500 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The 5500 XT features 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The PRO W6400 features 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 5500 XT has double the capacity and 75% more bandwidth. The PRO W6400 compensates with faster memory clocks: its memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the 5500 XT's 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The PRO W6400's narrower bus still limits total throughput.

Clock speeds favor the newer card. The PRO W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz. The 5500 XT has a base clock of 1187 MHz and a boost clock of 1757 MHz. The PRO W6400's boost clock is 32% higher. This clock advantage partially offsets its halved compute unit count, which explains the near-parity in Vulkan.

Pixel and texture rates tell a mixed story. The PRO W6400 achieves 74.27 GPixel/s, which is 32% higher than the 5500 XT's 56.22 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clocks and equal ROP count. The 5500 XT achieves 168.7 GTexel/s, which is 51% higher than the PRO W6400's 111.4 GTexel/s, thanks to its doubled TMU count.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. For OpenCL-heavy tasks that stress raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and large VRAM buffers, the Radeon Pro 5500 XT is the stronger choice. Its 19.3% OpenCL lead reflects a hardware configuration with twice the shading units, twice the texture units, double the memory capacity, and 75% more bandwidth. Applications that can use more than 4 GB of VRAM will also favor the 5500 XT, as the PRO W6400's 4 GB ceiling will force spills or prevent certain data sets from loading.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the choice is less clear. The 0.8% gap in Geekbench Vulkan means either card will deliver nearly identical results. The PRO W6400 achieves this parity with half the compute resources, which speaks to architectural efficiency gains in RDNA 2.0. Its higher clocks, newer process node, and ray tracing hardware make it the more modern part. The 12 ray accelerators give it a feature that the 5500 XT cannot match, which matters for any Vulkan application that uses ray tracing.

Power characteristics favor the PRO W6400. Its TDP is 50 W versus the 5500 XT's 125 W, and its suggested PSU is 250 W versus 300 W. The PRO W6400 also has a single-slot form factor with two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the 5500 XT is listed as an integrated graphics processor with no display outputs. For compact systems, low-power workstations, or deployments where display output is required, the PRO W6400 is the practical option.

The 5500 XT's 8 GB VRAM is its strongest practical advantage. For machine learning inference, large texture sets, or visual effects rendering, the extra 4 GB can be the difference between a task fitting in VRAM or not. The PRO W6400's 4 GB may be insufficient for such workloads, regardless of its architectural efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT. It delivers 5.398 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.80 TFLOPS FP16, versus the PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.130 TFLOPS FP16. This is reflected in the 19.3% Geekbench OpenCL lead.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W6400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The PRO W6400 has 12 dedicated ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Radeon Pro 5500 XT has no ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 (12_1) only.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The Radeon PRO W6400. It has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, compared to the 5500 XT's 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are the two cards close in Vulkan performance?

A: Yes. The 5500 XT scores 39,601 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the PRO W6400's 39,286, a difference of just 0.8%.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The Radeon PRO W6400 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT is listed with no outputs, indicating it is intended for systems with integrated display handling.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the largest differentiator. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT scores 41,772, beating the PRO W6400's 35,027 by 19.3%. This margin aligns with the hardware specification gap: the 5500 XT has 1,536 shading units versus 768, 96 TMUs versus 48, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 128.0 GB/s, and 8 GB versus 4 GB VRAM. The PRO W6400's higher clocks (2321 MHz boost versus 1757 MHz boost) cannot close a resource deficit this large. OpenCL workloads that scale with shading unit count and memory bandwidth will consistently favor the 5500 XT.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is nearly a tie. The 5500 XT scores 39,601; the PRO W6400 scores 39,286; the delta is 0.8%. This result is remarkable given the hardware disparity. The PRO W6400 achieves 97.6% of the 5500 XT's Vulkan score while using half the shading units and a third of the memory bandwidth. The RDNA 2.0 architecture, combined with a 32% higher boost clock, appears to extract significantly more performance per compute unit in Vulkan. The PRO W6400's 12 ray accelerators may also contribute to Vulkan efficiency, though the benchmark does not isolate ray tracing performance.

The average benchmark scores place these cards in different competitive tiers. The 5500 XT's average of 45,384 puts it within 1.3% of the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972) and within 0.5% of the Intel Arc A730M (45,592). The PRO W6400's average of 37,157 puts it within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507) and within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648). The 5500 XT competes with higher-tier laptop and workstation GPUs, while the PRO W6400 sits in the range of older desktop cards and entry-level accelerators.

The 5500 XT's percentile ranking of 84 versus the PRO W6400's 80 reflects a real, though modest, overall performance gap. When averaged across all benchmark tests, the 5500 XT leads by roughly 22%. The Vulkan near-parity narrows the overall gap, but the OpenCL dominance ensures the 5500 XT retains the higher aggregate score.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | Navi 14 | Navi 24 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 6 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1187 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1757 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 768 |

| TMUs | 96 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Accelerators | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 56.22 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 168.7 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.398 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 125 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2020-08-03 | 2022-01-18 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | None listed | Radeon Pro Vega |