AMD Radeon Pro 580X vs AMD Radeon PRO W6400 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 580X and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 represent two distinct generations of AMD professional graphics, separated by process technology and architectural design. The Pro 580X, based on the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, is an end-of-life product from 2019 designed for Apple MPX integration. The PRO W6400, using Navi 24 with RDNA 2.0 architecture, arrived in 2022 as a single-slot PCIe 4.0 x4 card. Benchmark data shows the older card maintains a slight edge in raw compute, but the architectural gulf between them is substantial. The Pro 580X achieves an average benchmark score of 38706 across three tests, while the PRO W6400 averages 37157 across two tests, a difference of roughly 4.2%. Both cards sit near the 80th percentile of all GPUs, with the Pro 580X at 82 and the PRO W6400 at 80, indicating they occupy similar performance tiers despite their generational divide.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 580X leads with an average benchmark score of 38706 across its three Geekbench tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 37157 average across its two tests (OpenCL, Vulkan).

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Pro 580X scores 36426 in OpenCL, which is 4% higher than the PRO W6400's 35027. This represents the larger of the two head-to-head benchmark deltas between them.

Q: What is the architectural difference in transistor density?

A: The PRO W6400's 6 nm TSMC process packs 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, more than double the Pro 580X's 24.6 million per square millimeter on its 14 nm GlobalFoundries node.

Q: Does the PRO W6400 support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes, the PRO W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the Pro 580X's GCN 4.0 design has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Pro 580X delivers 5.530 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is substantially higher than the PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS, despite the newer card's much higher clock speeds.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Pro 580X features 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 218.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the PRO W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 580X wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, taking both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. In OpenCL, it scores 36426 against the PRO W6400's 35027, a 4% advantage. The Vulkan gap is narrower at 2.1%, with scores of 40115 and 39286 respectively. This consistent lead in compute workloads suggests the Pro 580X's larger shading unit count — 2304 versus 768 — and wider 256-bit memory bus provide a fundamental throughput advantage that the PRO W6400's clock speed cannot overcome.

However, the PRO W6400 wins decisively in architectural efficiency and modern feature support. Its 6 nm process node allows a 50 W TDP compared to the Pro 580X's 185 W, representing a 73% reduction in power draw. The PRO W6400 also brings DirectX 12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and 12 ray tracing cores — features entirely absent from the older GCN 4.0 part. For workloads that leverage ray tracing or require the latest API features, the PRO W6400 is the only viable choice. Its PCIe 4.0 x4 interface and single-slot form factor also offer installation flexibility that the Pro 580X's Apple MPX integration cannot match.

The Pro 580X remains the stronger compute performer, particularly for OpenCL-heavy professional applications where its 5.530 TFLOPS FP32 and 172.8 GTexel/s texture rate provide raw horsepower. Its 8 GB VRAM capacity also gives it a memory footprint advantage for large datasets, even though its GDDR5 bandwidth of 218.9 GB/s exceeds the PRO W6400's 128.0 GB/s. For users constrained by power budgets or needing modern API features, the PRO W6400 wins; for pure compute throughput and memory capacity, the Pro 580X takes the crown.

Architecture Differences

The Pro 580X employs GCN 4.0 architecture on the Ellesmere chip, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. This design uses 5,700 million transistors across a 232 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. The GCN architecture is built around 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with FP16 performance equal to FP32 at 5.530 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This indicates no dedicated half-precision acceleration.

The PRO W6400's RDNA 2.0 architecture on Navi 24 represents a complete redesign. It is manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process, packing 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm² — a 54% smaller die with a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The RDNA 2.0 design features 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but adds 12 dedicated ray tracing cores. Crucially, FP16 throughput is 7.130 TFLOPS, which is exactly 2:1 over its FP32 rate of 3.565 TFLOPS, indicating the architecture doubles half-precision throughput via shader reuse.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Pro 580X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 218.9 GB/s bandwidth. The PRO W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering just 128.0 GB/s. Despite the newer memory type, the narrower bus halves the PRO W6400's bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a different story: the PRO W6400 boosts to 2321 MHz versus the Pro 580X's 1200 MHz, nearly doubling the frequency. This high clock rate partially compensates for fewer cores. The PRO W6400's pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s also exceeds the Pro 580X's 38.40 GPixel/s, a direct result of the clock advantage.

API support reflects the architectural generational gap. The Pro 580X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The PRO W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, adding ray tracing support and the latest rendering features. The Pro 580X's display outputs are limited to 2x HDMI 2.0b, while the PRO W6400 provides 2x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node shifts from 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) to 6 nm (TSMC), with die size dropping from 232 mm² to 107 mm². Transistor count is nearly identical — 5,700 million versus 5,400 million — but density more than doubles from 24.6M/mm² to 50.5M/mm². Clock speeds are dramatically higher on the newer card: base clock of 2039 MHz versus 1100 MHz, and boost of 2321 MHz versus 1200 MHz. Memory clocks also differ, with the PRO W6400 running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1710 MHz (6.8 Gbps effective) on the Pro 580X.

Core configuration differences are stark. The Pro 580X has 2304 shading units and 144 TMUs, while the PRO W6400 has 768 shading units and 48 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs, but the PRO W6400 adds 12 ray tracing cores that the Pro 580X lacks. FP32 throughput favors the older card at 5.530 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS, but FP16 flips in favor of the PRO W6400 at 7.130 TFLOPS versus 5.530 TFLOPS. Pixel rate favors the PRO W6400 at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 38.40 GPixel/s, while texture rate favors the Pro 580X at 172.8 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s.

Memory capacity halves from 8 GB to 4 GB, type changes from GDDR5 to GDDR6, bus width drops from 256-bit to 64-bit, and bandwidth falls from 218.9 GB/s to 128.0 GB/s. Power consumption plummets from 185 W to 50 W TDP. Form factor changes from IGP (Apple MPX) to single-slot, with the PRO W6400 requiring no power connectors and suggesting a 250 W PSU. Bus interface moves from Apple MPX to PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs change from 2x HDMI 2.0b to 2x DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates span from 2019-03-17 to 2022-01-18, and both are end-of-life. The PRO W6400 lists a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega, while the Pro 580X has no predecessor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the clearest separation between these two cards. The Pro 580X scores 36426, beating the PRO W6400's 35027 by 4%. This margin reflects the Pro 580X's substantial shading unit advantage — three times more units — and its 218.9 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is 71% higher than the PRO W6400's 128.0 GB/s. The OpenCL workload appears to scale well with core count and memory bandwidth, favoring the older, wider architecture despite its lower clocks. The PRO W6400's higher frequency cannot fully compensate for having only 768 shading units.

The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably. The Pro 580X scores 40115 versus the PRO W6400's 39286, a 2.1% delta. Vulkan's lower overhead and better parallelism utilization may help the PRO W6400 leverage its higher clock speed and newer architecture more effectively. The PRO W6400's 74.27 GPixel/s pixel rate, nearly double the Pro 580X's 38.40 GPixel/s, likely supports its stronger relative showing in this API. Still, the Pro 580X maintains its winning streak, extending its overall benchmark record to 2 wins and 0 losses.

When placed against their respective rival sets, the performance context becomes clearer. The Pro 580X's average score of 38706 puts it 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 575X (39116) and essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A (38691, 0% delta). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile by 0.9% (38349) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX570 by 1.1% (38299). The PRO W6400's average of 37157 places it 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36530) but 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507), 1.3% behind the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628), and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37648). These rival comparisons show both cards competing in the same performance band, with the Pro 580X holding a modest average advantage of 1549 points over the PRO W6400. The head-to-head results confirm that while the PRO W6400 offers modern features and efficiency, the Pro 580X retains a measurable compute performance lead in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.