AMD Radeon Pro 570 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two professional GPUs, with the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 taking both benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6400 scored 35027 against 27702 for the Radeon Pro 570, a margin of 26.4%. That is a substantial advantage for a card that draws a fraction of the power, and it reflects the architectural generational leap rather than any incremental clock speed bump.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The W6400 posts 39286, while the Radeon Pro 570 manages 31974, yielding a 22.9% lead for the newer card. Vulkan is a lower-level API that tends to reward modern hardware with better shader efficiency, and the data confirms that the W6400's RDNA 2.0 design extracts more work per compute unit than the older GCN 4.0 architecture in the Pro 570.

When compared against the broader GPU landscape, the W6400 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 37157. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37507 (a 0.9% deficit for the W6400), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37628 (1.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37648 (also 1.3% behind). Notably, the W6400 edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which scores 36530, by 1.7%. This is a compact workstation card trading blows with much larger desktop GPU parts.

The Radeon Pro 570, on the other hand, lands at the 78th percentile, with an average score of 33207. Its closest rivals are all mobile or compact workstation parts: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile at 33170 (a 0.1% deficit), NVIDIA T550 Mobile at 33161 (0.1% behind), NVIDIA P104-100 at 32982 (0.7% behind), and NVIDIA T600 Mobile at 32849 (1.1% behind). The Pro 570 is effectively at parity with these mobile chips, which is a stark contrast to the W6400's ability to keep pace with full-size desktop cards from the previous generation.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of AMD's GPU design. The W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip, built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Pro 570 uses the Ellesmere chip, based on GCN 4.0, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That process shrink alone explains a great deal of the performance-per-watt difference: the W6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The Pro 570 has 5,700 million transistors across a much larger 232 mm² die, yielding just 24.6M per mm². The newer chip is not only denser, it is also far more efficient.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The W6400 carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray accelerators. The Pro 570 has 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs, but only 32 ROPs and no dedicated ray tracing hardware. Despite having more than double the shader count, the Pro 570's FP32 throughput is only 3.960 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400. That is a narrow 11% advantage for the older card, and it comes at the cost of 150 W TDP versus 50 W for the W6400. The W6400 also delivers FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, whereas the Pro 570 is limited to a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 performance is identical to FP32 at 3.960 TFLOPS.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. The W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 570 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 217.0 GB/s. The wider bus gives the older card a bandwidth advantage of roughly 70%, which matters in texture-heavy workloads, but the newer card's higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency compensate in compute tasks. The W6400's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the Pro 570's memory runs at 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective).

API support also differs. The W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro 570 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer card's ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate compliance are significant for future-proofing, though the Pro 570's IGP form factor (it is integrated into portable devices, not a discrete card) means it was never meant for that kind of workload.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive recommendation for the W6400 in most professional scenarios. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 26.4% and 22.9%, it achieves a higher average benchmark score (37157 versus 33207), and it does so with a 50 W TDP against 150 W. It also offers ray tracing support, a modern API set, and a smaller, single-slot footprint with no external power connectors. The Pro 570's only measurable advantages are raw shader count, texture units, and memory bandwidth, none of which translated into wins in the recorded tests.

Choose the W6400 if you need compute performance, modern API support, or low power consumption. Choose the Pro 570 only if you specifically require the higher memory bandwidth (217.0 GB/s) for bandwidth-bound tasks, or if you are working within a portable device that already integrates the chip, since it is an IGP rather than a discrete card.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35027 versus 27702 for the Radeon Pro 570, a 26.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W6400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it includes 12 ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Radeon Pro 570 has no ray tracing cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do these cards compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The W6400 averages 37157 across its benchmark suite, while the Pro 570 averages 33207. The W6400 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, the Pro 570 at the 78th.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The W6400 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no external power connectors, while the Pro 570 has a TDP of 150 W and also uses no power connectors but is an IGP rather than a discrete card.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Radeon Pro 570 has 217.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, versus 128.0 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 bus for the W6400.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The W6400 was released on 2022-01-18, the Pro 570 on 2017-06-04.

Where Each One Wins

The W6400 is the clear winner in compute-oriented tasks. Its OpenCL lead of 26.4% and Vulkan lead of 22.9% suggest that shader-heavy workloads, rendering, and general GPGPU compute will favor the newer architecture. Its FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS is nearly double its FP32 rate, which benefits mixed-precision workloads. The ray accelerators also make it the only option of the two for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which is increasingly expected in professional visualization.

The Pro 570 retains one meaningful edge: memory bandwidth. At 217.0 GB/s, it offers 69.5% more bandwidth than the W6400's 128.0 GB/s. For tasks that are purely bandwidth-bound, such as large data transfers or certain texture streaming scenarios, the older card could be competitive. Its 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs also give it higher theoretical texture fill rate (123.8 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s), which may help in some legacy OpenGL workloads. However, the recorded benchmarks show that these advantages did not translate into higher scores in either of the two tests available.

For power-constrained environments, the W6400 is transformative. A 50 W TDP means it can be passively cooled or placed in small form factor systems. The Pro 570's 150 W TDP, despite being an IGP, still requires substantial cooling and power delivery. The W6400's PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is also newer than the Pro 570's PCIe 3.0 x16, which matters for data transfer speeds in modern systems.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | AMD Radeon Pro 570 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Die size | 107 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Transistor density | 50.5M / mm² | 24.6M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2039 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2321 MHz | 1105 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1695 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 48 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray tracing cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 35.36 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 123.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 3.960 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.960 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 150 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| API support | DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 | DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3 |

| Release date | 2022-01-18 | 2017-06-04 |