AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 represent two very different eras of professional graphics, and the benchmark data reflects that divide clearly. The WX 7100, a 2016-era workstation card built on GCN 4.0, holds a decisive lead in raw compute throughput, while the W6400, a 2022 entry-level part on RDNA 2.0, counters with architectural efficiency and modern feature support. Across the two shared Geekbench tests, the WX 7100 wins both, but the margin tells a more nuanced story than the final tally of 2-0 suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant gap between these two cards appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the WX 7100 scores 40,148 against the W6400’s 35,027. That is a 14.6% advantage for the older card, a substantial lead that aligns with its hardware specifications. The WX 7100 packs 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the W6400’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The WX 7100 also delivers 5.728 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 3.565 TFLOPS on the W6400, a 60% raw compute advantage that does not directly translate to the benchmark scores but explains the direction of the result.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the story changes. The WX 7100 still wins, but by only 1%, scoring 39,683 against the W6400’s 39,286. This narrow margin is remarkable given the W6400’s much smaller silicon. The W6400’s higher clock speeds — a 2,039 MHz base and 2,321 MHz boost versus the WX 7100’s 1,188 MHz base and 1,243 MHz boost — help close the gap in API-level workloads that are less dependent on raw shader count. The W6400 also has 12 ray tracing cores, a feature the WX 7100 lacks entirely, which may contribute to its stronger relative showing in Vulkan.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the WX 7100 sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 40,063, while the W6400 lands in the 80th percentile with an average of 37,157. That 2-percentile difference is small, and the WX 7100’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 580 (40,318 average, -0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 (40,377 average, -0.8% delta), meaning it is trading blows with much newer hardware. The W6400, meanwhile, is compared against the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507 average, -0.9% delta) and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628 average, -1.3% delta), showing it holds its own against older high-end parts despite its entry-level positioning.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the WX 7100 is the stronger compute performer, while the W6400 is the more efficient and modern architecture. For workloads that stress FP32 throughput or large memory buffers, the WX 7100’s 14.6% OpenCL lead and 8 GB of VRAM make it the obvious choice. Its 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, delivered over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, is nearly double the W6400’s 128.0 GB/s on a 64-bit GDDR6 bus. That difference matters for datasets that exceed 4 GB, which the W6400 cannot accommodate.

However, the W6400 is not without its arguments. Its 50 W TDP is less than half the WX 7100’s 130 W, and it requires no power connectors, making it a drop-in solution for low-profile or power-constrained systems. The WX 7100 needs a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, versus 250 W for the W6400. The W6400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x4, doubling the per-lane bandwidth of the WX 7100’s PCIe 3.0 x16, which can benefit small data transfers despite the narrower bus.

The verdict depends on priorities. If maximum compute throughput and large VRAM are non-negotiable, the WX 7100 wins outright. If power efficiency, modern features, and a smaller footprint matter more, the W6400 is the practical pick. The 1% Vulkan margin shows the W6400 is not far behind in API-bound workloads, so users who primarily run Vulkan-based applications may not notice the difference.

Where Each One Wins

The WX 7100 wins in every scenario where shader count and memory capacity dominate. OpenCL workloads — typical of scientific computing, rendering, and some machine learning inference — favor its 2,304 shading units and 5.728 TFLOPS FP32. The 8 GB VRAM also allows it to hold larger textures, models, or simulation grids than the W6400’s 4 GB. Its 179.0 GTexel/s texture rate and 39.78 GPixel/s pixel rate further support heavy geometry and texture sampling, though the W6400 counters with a higher 74.27 GPixel/s pixel rate, which is a curious anomaly given its smaller core.

The W6400 wins in efficiency and feature support. Its 6 nm TSMC process node, versus the WX 7100’s 14 nm GlobalFoundries node, delivers 50.5 million transistors per mm² compared to 24.6 million, making it far denser. The 12 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support are absent on the WX 7100, which only reaches DirectX 12 (12_0). For real-time visualization or ray-traced previews, the W6400 has a hardware advantage the WX 7100 cannot match. The W6400 also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 on the WX 7100, which may matter for newer applications.

In terms of display connectivity, the WX 7100 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the W6400 provides only 2x DisplayPort 1.4a. For multi-monitor setups, the WX 7100 is clearly better. Both cards are single-slot, but the WX 7100 measures 241 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the W6400’s dimensions are not listed, suggesting a smaller board that is easier to fit in compact chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 7100 has an average benchmark score of 40,063 across all tests, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157. The WX 7100 also sits in the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, two points higher than the W6400’s 80th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the WX 7100 in OpenCL?

A: The WX 7100 scores 40,148 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 14.6% higher than the W6400’s 35,027. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any shared benchmark.

Q: Does the W6400 beat the WX 7100 in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the WX 7100 winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. The Vulkan margin is only 1%, with scores of 39,683 and 39,286 respectively.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The WX 7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6400’s memory runs at 16 Gbps effective, compared to 7 Gbps effective on the WX 7100.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has ray tracing cores, with 12 present on the chip. The WX 7100 has no RT cores, and its DirectX support is limited to 12 (12_0), while the W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Q: What power connector does each card require?

A: The WX 7100 requires a single 6-pin power connector and has a 130 W TDP. The W6400 requires no power connectors and has a 50 W TDP. The suggested PSU ratings are 300 W for the WX 7100 and 250 W for the W6400.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The WX 7100 uses GCN 4.0, the fourth iteration of AMD’s Graphics Core Next design, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its chip, codenamed Ellesmere, contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 24.6 million per mm². The architecture delivers FP32 and FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning both are rated at 5.728 TFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The W6400 uses RDNA 2.0, a complete departure from GCN, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Its Navi 24 chip packs 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm², giving it a density of 50.5 million transistors per mm² — more than double the WX 7100. RDNA 2.0 implements 12 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from GCN 4.0, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FP16 rate is 7.130 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, meaning the W6400 is actually faster in half-precision compute than the WX 7100’s 1:1 ratio at 5.728 TFLOPS.

The transistor counts are nearly identical, but the die size difference is stark: 232 mm² versus 107 mm². This reflects the efficiency gains of RDNA 2.0 over GCN 4.0, as the newer architecture achieves similar transistor counts in less than half the area. The WX 7100’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro GCN, with a successor of Radeon Pro Vega. The W6400’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, and it has no successor listed, marking it as the end of a line. The WX 7100 was released on 2016-11-09, while the W6400 arrived on 2022-01-18, a gap of over five years.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification differences are in memory and compute resources. The WX 7100 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s, a 75% advantage for the older card. Shading units number 2,304 on the WX 7100 versus 768 on the W6400, and TMUs are 144 versus 48. Both have 32 ROPs, but the W6400’s higher clocks give it a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s versus 39.78 GPixel/s on the WX 7100. Texture rate favors the WX 7100 at 179.0 GTexel/s, compared to 111.4 GTexel/s on the W6400.

Clock speeds are reversed: the W6400 runs at 2,039 MHz base and 2,321 MHz boost, while the WX 7100 runs at 1,188 MHz base and 1,243 MHz boost. The W6400’s memory clock is 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1,750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on the WX 7100. Power consumption is a major differentiator: 50 W TDP for the W6400 versus 130 W for the WX 7100, and the W6400 requires no power connector while the WX 7100 needs a 1x 6-pin. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x4 on the W6400 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the WX 7100. Display outputs are 2x DisplayPort 1.4a on the W6400 and 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the WX 7100. The WX 7100 has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, while the W6400 has no listed launch MSRP. Both cards are end-of-life production status.