AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro 580 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400

The AMD Radeon Pro 580 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 represent two distinct eras of AMD professional graphics, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The Pro 580, built on GCN 4.0 with a 14nm process, faces the newer RDNA 2.0-based PRO W6400 on a 6nm node. Despite the W6400's modern foundation, benchmark data reveals the older card holds a decisive performance advantage in the two tests where both were measured, while the newer card counters with dramatically higher efficiency and modern feature support. This head-to-head pits raw compute throughput against architectural sophistication, and the results challenge assumptions about generational progress in professional GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards comes from two Geekbench workloads, and in both cases the Radeon Pro 580 emerges victorious by a clear margin. In the geekbench_opencl test, the Pro 580 scores 38,457 against the PRO W6400's 35,027, a delta of 9.8% in favor of the older card. The gap widens slightly in geekbench_vulkan, where the Pro 580 posts 43,285 versus 39,286 for the W6400, yielding a 10.2% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent consistent, repeatable performance gaps that place the Pro 580 firmly ahead in raw compute workloads.

What makes these results particularly striking is the architectural gulf between the two. The Pro 580 deploys 2,304 shading units running at a modest 1100 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost clock, while the W6400 packs only 768 shading units but runs at a much higher 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost. The Pro 580's FP32 throughput of 5.530 TFLOPS dwarfs the W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS, which explains the benchmark dominance. The Pro 580 also benefits from a 256-bit memory bus delivering 217.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the W6400's 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s. For compute-heavy OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, memory bandwidth and raw shader count often matter more than clock speed, and the data confirms this pattern.

The overall benchmark averages reinforce the picture. The Pro 580's average benchmark score of 40,318 places it at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6400 averages 37,157, good for the 80th percentile. Interestingly, the Pro 580's nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (average score 40,377, just 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 (40,063, trailing by 0.6%). The W6400's rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, 0.9% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, 1.3% ahead). This contextual data shows both cards sit in a competitive mid-range tier, but the Pro 580 occupies a slightly higher performance stratum.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon Pro 580 wins on raw compute performance across both tested workloads, making it the clear choice for tasks that stress FP32 throughput, such as OpenCL-based rendering, scientific simulation, or Vulkan compute pipelines. Its 5.530 TFLOPS FP32 figure and 172.8 GTexel/s texture rate provide substantial muscle for parallel workloads. The 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus also gives it a capacity and bandwidth advantage that benefits large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The Radeon PRO W6400, despite losing both head-to-head tests, holds advantages in areas the benchmark numbers don't directly capture. Its 50 W TDP is a fraction of the Pro 580's 185 W, making it far more suitable for power-constrained environments. The W6400's single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors allow for easy deployment in compact systems, whereas the Pro 580 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable-device-dependent display outputs, suggesting it was designed for laptop or all-in-one implementations. The W6400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x4, doubling the bandwidth per lane of the Pro 580's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, which can benefit data transfer in systems with modern motherboards.

In terms of API support, the W6400 pulls ahead with DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 580 offers DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The W6400's 12 ray accelerator cores provide hardware ray tracing capability absent from the Pro 580, a feature increasingly relevant in professional visualization workloads. For users prioritizing power efficiency, modern API compatibility, and ray tracing, the W6400 wins despite its lower benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs embody fundamentally different design philosophies. The Pro 580 uses the Ellesmere chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14nm process. This chip contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6M per mm². GCN 4.0 was designed for high shader counts and wide memory buses, prioritizing raw throughput over efficiency.

The PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 6nm process. It packs 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm², achieving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm² — more than double the Pro 580's density. This density improvement reflects RDNA 2.0's focus on efficiency per transistor and per watt. The W6400's 768 shading units operate at over 2 GHz, a clock speed the 14nm Pro 580 could never approach, enabling competitive performance per shader despite fewer total units.

Memory architecture differs dramatically. The Pro 580 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. The Pro 580's bandwidth of 217.0 GB/s exceeds the W6400's 128.0 GB/s by 69.5%. However, the W6400's GDDR6 memory runs at 16 Gbps effective, far faster than the Pro 580's 6.8 Gbps, though the narrower bus limits total throughput. The Pro 580's FP16 performance matches its FP32 at 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the W6400 doubles FP16 to 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), indicating better support for mixed-precision workloads.

The Pro 580 was released in June 2017 as part of the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation, now end-of-life. The W6400 arrived in January 2022 in the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation, also end-of-life, with the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor. The W6400's pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s exceeds the Pro 580's 38.40 GPixel/s, despite the latter's higher texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580 wins decisively, with 5.530 TFLOPS FP32 versus the PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS. This translates to a 9.8% lead in OpenCL benchmarks and a 10.2% lead in Vulkan benchmarks.

Q: Does the newer PRO W6400 consume less power?

A: Yes, significantly. The W6400 has a 50 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 580 draws 185 W. This makes the W6400 roughly 73% more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the PRO W6400. It includes 12 ray accelerator cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 580 has no ray tracing hardware and only DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do memory capacities compare?

A: The Pro 580 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 217.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 provides 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the manufacturing process differences?

A: The Pro 580 uses GlobalFoundries' 14nm process with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die. The W6400 uses TSMC's 6nm process with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, achieving over double the transistor density.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The PRO W6400 is more modern, supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, versus the Pro 580's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 580 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Chip | Ellesmere | Navi 24 |

| 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 | 1100 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 6.8 Gbps effective | 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 2304 | 768 |

| TMUs | 144 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Accelerator Cores | N/A | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 38.40 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 172.8 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.530 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 185 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

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

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

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

| Predecessor | N/A | Radeon Pro Vega |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy: the Radeon Pro 580 is the faster card in every measured benchmark, winning both head-to-head tests with margins of 9.8% and 10.2%. Its higher FP32 throughput, larger memory capacity, and wider memory bus make it the superior choice for compute-intensive professional workloads where raw speed matters most. The Pro 580's 8 GB of VRAM versus the W6400's 4 GB also provides headroom for larger datasets and higher-resolution rendering tasks.

However, the PRO W6400 makes a compelling counter-argument based on efficiency and modernity. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors enable deployment scenarios impossible for the 185 W IGP-class Pro 580. The W6400's 6nm process, PCIe 4.0 interface, ray tracing capabilities, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proof it for software ecosystems increasingly leveraging these features. The W6400's 74.27 GPixel/s pixel rate, more than double the Pro 580's, suggests advantages in geometry-heavy workloads.

For users whose primary metric is benchmark performance, the Radeon Pro 580 is the unambiguous winner. Its average benchmark score of 40,318 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070, a much newer GPU, while the W6400's 37,157 average aligns it with the RTX 4070. But for those building compact, power-efficient workstations or requiring hardware ray tracing, the PRO W6400's architectural advantages may outweigh its compute deficit. The choice ultimately hinges on whether raw throughput or modern features take priority.