AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 575 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400

The AMD Radeon Pro 575 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 represent two distinct generations of AMD professional graphics, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The Pro 575 is a 2017-era GCN 4.0 part built for Apple Mac systems, while the PRO W6400 is a 2022 RDNA 2.0 card aimed at entry-level workstation desktops. The benchmark data reveals a surprising outcome: despite the W6400 having far fewer shading units and a narrower memory bus, it wins both head-to-head tests, albeit by modest margins. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, with the Pro 575 averaging 39,555 points across all tests versus 37,157 for the W6400, yet the W6400 pulls ahead in the shared OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. This inversion of expectations — where newer architecture compensates for fewer resources — forms the core of this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins both shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 35,027 against 34,596 for the Pro 575, a 1.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 39,286 versus 37,878, a 3.6% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Pro 575 has a higher average benchmark score of 39,555 across three tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the W6400 averages 37,157 across two tests (OpenCL, Vulkan). The Pro 575 also holds a higher percentile rank at 82 versus 80 for the W6400.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards feature 4 GB of memory, but the Pro 575 uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 217.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus delivering 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6400 runs at 16 Gbps effective with a 2000 MHz memory clock, whereas the Pro 575 runs at 6.8 Gbps effective with a 1695 MHz memory clock.

Q: How do the architectures differ?

A: The Pro 575 is built on GCN 4.0 using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The W6400 uses RDNA 2.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process, packing 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm² — nearly half the die size.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Pro 575 has a TDP of 150 W, while the W6400 draws only 50 W. The W6400 also suggests a 250 W power supply, whereas the Pro 575 lists no suggested PSU and uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores. The Pro 575 lists no RT cores, reflecting its older GCN architecture. The W6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_0) for the Pro 575.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, spanning three major design generations. The Pro 575 employs GCN 4.0, AMD's fourth-generation Graphics Core Next architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This design dates to mid-2017 and represents AMD's approach to balancing compute throughput with fixed-function graphics. The chip, codenamed Ellesmere, contains 5,700 million transistors spread across a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The architecture relies on a unified shader array with 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, all operating at a pixel rate of 35.07 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 140.3 GTexel/s.

In contrast, the W6400 uses RDNA 2.0, AMD's second-generation Radeon DNA architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The Navi 24 chip packs 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm², achieving a density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter — more than double the Pro 575's density. This density advantage allows the W6400 to operate at dramatically higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 2039 MHz and boost clock of 2321 MHz, whereas the Pro 575's clocks are not listed. Despite having only 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, the W6400 reaches a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s — more than double the Pro 575 — thanks to its higher clocks and architectural efficiency. The texture rate is lower at 111.4 GTexel/s versus 140.3 GTexel/s.

The RDNA 2.0 architecture also introduces dedicated ray tracing hardware, with 12 RT cores present in the W6400. The Pro 575 has none. The API support reflects this generational leap: the W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 575 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. Floating-point performance tells a nuanced story: the Pro 575 delivers 4.489 TFLOPS FP32 with an identical 4.489 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the W6400 produces 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 but 7.130 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), showing RDNA's shift toward packed math for compute workloads.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Pro 575 uses GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, achieving 217.0 GB/s bandwidth with a 1695 MHz memory clock. The W6400 uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, halving the bus width but compensating with a 2000 MHz memory clock and 16 Gbps effective speed, yielding 128.0 GB/s bandwidth — about 59% of the Pro 575's throughput. Both cards have 4 GB of memory, but the interface differences are fundamental: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Pro 575 versus PCIe 4.0 x4 for the W6400. The W6400 also offers two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Pro 575's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its MXM module form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two tests both cards share are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the W6400 wins both. In OpenCL, the W6400 scores 35,027 against 34,596 for the Pro 575, a delta of -1.2% from the Pro 575's perspective. This 431-point gap is narrow, suggesting that the Pro 575's higher raw FP32 throughput (4.489 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS) nearly compensates for its older architecture and lower clock speeds. The W6400's advantage likely stems from its RDNA 2.0 compute efficiency and higher boost clock of 2321 MHz, which allows it to execute instructions faster despite fewer shaders.

The Vulkan gap is more pronounced. The W6400 scores 39,286 versus 37,878 for the Pro 575, a 3.6% delta. This 1,408-point difference indicates that the newer architecture handles Vulkan's explicit, low-overhead API more effectively. The W6400's ray tracing cores may also contribute, as Vulkan 1.4 (which the W6400 supports over the Pro 575's Vulkan 1.3) includes more robust ray tracing and mesh shader support. Interestingly, the Pro 575 has a higher average benchmark score overall (39,555) because it includes a Geekbench Metal test where it scores 46,192 — a workload the W6400 does not run. This Metal result, likely reflecting Apple's macOS optimization for the Pro 575, boosts its average above the W6400 despite losing both shared tests.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for these scores. The Pro 575's average of 39,555 places it near the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile (39,568, 0% delta) and slightly above the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39,116, +1.1%). The W6400's average of 37,157 sits near the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, -0.9%) and NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628, -1.3%), but notably below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, -1.3%). The W6400 also outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530, +1.7%). These comparisons suggest that while the W6400 loses in overall average, its Vulkan strength keeps it competitive with much larger GPUs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 575 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,700 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 232 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.6M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

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

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 217.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 128 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 35.07 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 140.3 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.489 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 4.489 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

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

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

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but counterintuitive picture. The Radeon PRO W6400 wins both head-to-head benchmark tests, yet the Radeon Pro 575 holds a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking. This divergence stems from the Pro 575's Metal benchmark score of 46,192, which the W6400 cannot match because it lacks that test — and the Pro 575's overall average of 39,555 versus 37,157 for the W6400. Users in Apple ecosystems should favor the Pro 575, given its MXM module design, portable-device-dependent outputs, and strong Metal showing. The W6400, with its single-slot form factor, DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, and PCIe 4.0 interface, suits desktop workstation builds. Its 50 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it far more power-efficient than the 150 W Pro 575, which is critical for compact systems. The W6400's ray tracing capability and DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proof it for emerging workloads, while the Pro 575's 256-bit memory bus and higher bandwidth (217.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s) benefit memory-intensive tasks like large texture streaming. Neither card supports modern APIs beyond their listed versions, and both are end-of-life products, so selection should hinge on platform compatibility and the specific benchmark workloads most relevant to the user's applications.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro 575 wins in: Metal performance (46,192 Geekbench score), overall average benchmark score (39,555), percentile rank (82nd versus 80th), memory bandwidth (217.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s), memory bus width (256-bit versus 64-bit), shading units (2,048 versus 768), texture units (128 versus 48), raw FP32 throughput (4.489 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS), texture rate (140.3 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s), and transistor count (5,700 million versus 5,400 million). These advantages make it better suited for Apple Mac Pro systems (via MXM module), compute workloads that favor higher shader counts, and applications that leverage OpenCL or Metal on macOS. Its 1:1 FP16 ratio also indicates balanced FP16/FP32 performance, which may benefit certain scientific or professional compute tasks.

AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in: Geekbench OpenCL (35,027 versus 34,596), Geekbench Vulkan (39,286 versus 37,878), pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s versus 35.07 GPixel/s), boost clock (2321 MHz), base clock (2039 MHz), FP16 throughput (7.130 TFLOPS versus 4.489 TFLOPS), ray tracing cores (12 versus none), power efficiency (50 W TDP versus 150 W), transistor density (50.5M / mm² versus 24.6M / mm²), process node (6 nm versus 14 nm), memory speed (16 Gbps versus 6.8 Gbps effective), PCIe interface (4.0 x4 versus 3.0 x16), DirectX support (12 Ultimate versus 12_0), Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.3), and display outputs (2x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable-device-dependent). The W6400 excels in rasterization-heavy workloads (due to its pixel rate), ray-traced scenes, Vulkan-based applications, and systems where power draw and physical size are constraints. Its higher FP16 performance suggests strength in AI inference or compute tasks that use half-precision math, despite lower FP32 numbers. The single-slot design and PCIe 4.0 support make it a drop-in upgrade for modern desktop boards, while its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is far less demanding than typical workstation cards.