AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 480 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and the AMD Radeon RX 480 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, one aimed at professional efficiency and the other at consumer rasterization. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the RX 480 wins both shared head-to-head tests, but the W6400 holds a higher overall percentile ranking. This creates an interesting dynamic where raw compute performance and architectural efficiency point in different directions, making the choice between them heavily dependent on workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share exactly two benchmark tests in the dataset, and the AMD Radeon RX 480 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 480 scores 37,998 against the W6400’s 35,027, a delta of -7.8% from the W6400’s perspective. That is a meaningful gap in raw compute throughput, reflecting the RX 480’s larger shader array and wider memory bus. The Vulkan result is even more decisive: the RX 480 posts 45,968 versus the W6400’s 39,286, a -14.5% delta. This 17% relative advantage in Vulkan suggests the RX 480 scales better with API-level parallelism, likely due to its 2,304 shading units versus the W6400’s 768.

However, the aggregate picture is more nuanced. The W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37,157 across all its tested workloads, while the RX 480 averages 33,997. That means the W6400 performs about 9.3% better on average, even though it loses both direct comparisons. How is that possible? The W6400’s benchmark pool includes only Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, while the RX 480 also runs 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (score 966) and Geekbench Metal (score 51,057). The RX 480’s Metal score is exceptionally high, but its 3DMark result is low enough to drag down its average. The W6400’s percentile rank of 80 versus the RX 480’s 78 reinforces this: the W6400 sits slightly higher relative to all GPUs in the database, despite losing the shared tests.

Looking at nearest rivals, the W6400’s average score sits within 1.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530) and within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648). The RX 480, by contrast, is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon RX 7700S (33,849, +0.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154, -0.5%). This places the two cards in different performance tiers relative to modern hardware, with the W6400 competing against much newer architectures.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, spanning process technology, instruction set design, and memory subsystem. The W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm TSMC process. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. This process difference alone explains much of the efficiency disparity: the W6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die (50.5 million transistors per mm²), while the RX 480 spreads 5,700 million transistors across 232 mm² (24.6 million per mm²). The W6400 achieves nearly double the transistor density.

Shader configuration differs dramatically. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is exactly three times more shading units and TMUs on the RX 480, yet the ROP count is identical at 32. This explains the pixel rate inversion: the W6400 outputs 74.27 GPixel/s versus the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s, because the W6400 runs at much higher clocks (2,321 MHz boost versus 1,266 MHz boost) and achieves better per-clock ROP efficiency. The texture rate tells the opposite story: the RX 480 hits 182.3 GTexel/s versus the W6400’s 111.4 GTexel/s, thanks to triple the TMU count.

Compute throughput also favors the RX 480 in raw FP32: 5.834 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS. But the FP16 picture is intriguing. The W6400 doubles its FP32 rate to 7.130 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 480 runs FP16 at the same 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1). This means the W6400 is actually faster in FP16 workloads, a significant advantage for certain compute tasks. The W6400 also includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the RX 480 lacks entirely — a generational feature that GCN 4.0 cannot support.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins in raw compute throughput and legacy API performance. Its 5.834 TFLOPS FP32 and 256 GB/s memory bandwidth (double the W6400’s 128 GB/s) make it better suited for traditional rasterization-heavy workloads and large texture sets. The 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer versus 4 GB GDDR6 means the RX 480 can handle larger working sets without spilling to system memory. Its Vulkan score of 45,968 is 17% ahead of the W6400’s 39,286, indicating better performance in modern cross-platform APIs when the workload is compute-bound. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, while low in absolute terms, shows it can run DX12 titles, though its DirectX support stops at 12_0 rather than the W6400’s 12 Ultimate (12_2).

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in efficiency, pixel throughput, and modern feature support. Its 50 W TDP is one-third of the RX 480’s 150 W, and it requires no external power connectors versus the RX 480’s single 6-pin. The suggested PSU rating of 250 W versus 450 W further underscores the efficiency gap. The W6400’s 74.27 GPixel/s fill rate is 83% higher than the RX 480’s, which benefits resolution-independent operations and certain post-processing effects. Its FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS, making it superior for mixed-precision compute. The 12 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced effects that the RX 480 simply cannot execute. The W6400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x4, while the RX 480 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 — the newer interface offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the x4 width limits total throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

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

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 232 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Speed | 16 Gbps effective | 8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 48 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2016-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 229 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 delivers 5.834 TFLOPS FP32, which is 64% higher than the W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS. This advantage stems from its 2,304 shading units versus 768 on the W6400.

Q: Is the W6400 faster in any compute workload?

A: Yes, in FP16 workloads the W6400 achieves 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), exceeding the RX 480’s 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The W6400 also has 12 ray tracing cores that the RX 480 completely lacks.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The RX 480 has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus delivering 256.0 GB/s, while the W6400 has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus delivering 128.0 GB/s. The RX 480 provides double the capacity and bandwidth.

Q: What does the power consumption difference mean for system requirements?

A: The W6400 draws 50 W TDP with no power connectors and requires a 250 W PSU, while the RX 480 draws 150 W, needs one 6-pin connector, and requires a 450 W PSU. The W6400 is also single-slot versus the RX 480’s dual-slot design.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The W6400 also adds hardware ray tracing support.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their direct head-to-head results?

A: The W6400 averages 37,157 across all tests (80th percentile), while the RX 480 averages 33,997 (78th percentile). Despite this, the RX 480 wins both shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL 37,998 vs 35,027 (-7.8%) and Geekbench Vulkan 45,968 vs 39,286 (-14.5%).