AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark database separates these two AMD workstation and mobile graphics solutions along clear lines. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M records wins in both head-to-head tests, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 does not claim a single victory in the shared benchmark suite. That said, the two cards occupy different performance tiers, and the data suggests each was designed for a different workload profile rather than a direct shootout.

The RX 5600M leads in compute-heavy tasks. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 59,589 versus 35,027 for the PRO W6400 represents a 70.1% advantage, the largest margin recorded between the two. This is a substantial gap in raw floating-point throughput, and it indicates the RX 5600M is the stronger choice for general-purpose compute, rendering, or any task that scales with shader count and memory bandwidth. The RX 5600M also wins in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 48,843 against 39,286, a 24.3% lead. Vulkan performance often reflects real-world gaming and modern graphics API efficiency, so the RX 5600M holds the edge there as well.

The PRO W6400, however, is not without purpose. Its 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while lower than the RX 5600M's 85th percentile, still places it above many desktop and mobile parts. Its average benchmark score of 37,157 is close to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, which scores 37,507 with a delta of -0.9%, meaning the PRO W6400 is nearly on par with that older flagship. The RX 5600M, by contrast, sits near the Intel Arc A530M (46,614) and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702), both within 0.2% of its own average of 46,601. The takeaway: the RX 5600M competes in a higher performance class, while the PRO W6400 punches near its weight in a lower tier.

In terms of benchmark coverage, the RX 5600M has four recorded tests (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the PRO W6400 only has two (OpenCL and Vulkan). The RX 5600M's additional DirectX 12 and Metal results give it a broader profile, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,320 demonstrates DirectX 12 capability that the PRO W6400 cannot match in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is significant. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The PRO W6400 uses Navi 24 on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This generational jump brings architectural improvements to the PRO W6400, including support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1) on the RX 5600M. The PRO W6400 also includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the RX 5600M has none listed. For workloads that leverage DirectX 12 Ultimate features or ray tracing, the PRO W6400 has a hardware advantage despite its lower raw compute.

The transistor counts tell a story of design priorities. The RX 5600M packs 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 41.0 million per square millimeter. The PRO W6400 uses only 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, but achieves a higher density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The RX 5600M is the larger, more complex chip, while the PRO W6400 is a smaller, denser design that benefits from the newer 6 nm process.

Clock speeds also differ sharply. The RX 5600M runs at a 1035 MHz base and 1265 MHz boost, with a game clock of 1190 MHz. The PRO W6400 runs much higher at 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost. Despite the RX 5600M's larger shader count, the PRO W6400's higher clocks help close some of the gap in certain tasks, though not enough to overcome the RX 5600M's hardware advantage in the recorded benchmarks.

Memory configurations are another major differentiator. The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s. The RX 5600M offers both more capacity and more than double the bandwidth, which is critical for high-resolution textures and compute workloads. Memory clock rates also differ: the RX 5600M runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the PRO W6400 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The PRO W6400's faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the bandwidth gap remains decisive.

Power and physical design diverge as well. The RX 5600M has a 150 W TDP and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, typical of a mobile part. The PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP, is a single-slot card, also has no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The PRO W6400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The PRO W6400 provides 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 5600M's display outputs are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most users. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M is the stronger performer in compute and graphics workloads, winning both head-to-head benchmarks with leads of 70.1% in OpenCL and 24.3% in Vulkan. Its higher average benchmark score, larger memory pool, and wider memory bus make it the better choice for tasks that demand raw throughput, such as rendering, video editing, or gaming. Its 85th percentile ranking among all GPUs underscores its position in the upper tier of the database.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, however, should not be dismissed. Its 80th percentile ranking and average score of 37,157 place it close to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, a respected desktop card. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it an efficient option for compact workstations. The presence of ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it is more future-proof for applications that adopt those features. For users who prioritize power efficiency, small form factor, or ray tracing capability, the PRO W6400 has clear advantages.

The choice depends on the workload. If the priority is maximum compute performance and memory bandwidth, the RX 5600M wins on every recorded metric. If the priority is efficiency, compactness, and modern API support, the PRO W6400 is the more sensible pick. The recorded data does not show the PRO W6400 outperforming the RX 5600M in any shared test, so users seeking outright speed should look to the RX 5600M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5600M has an average benchmark score of 46,601, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The RX 5600M scores 59,589 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 35,027 for the PRO W6400, a 70.1% advantage for the RX 5600M.

Q: Does the PRO W6400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the PRO W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 5600M does not list ray tracing cores and supports only DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 5600M has 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus. The PRO W6400 has 128.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The RX 5600M has a 150 W TDP, while the PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP. The PRO W6400 lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the RX 5600M does not list a suggested PSU.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The RX 5600M ranks in the 85th percentile, while the PRO W6400 ranks in the 80th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared benchmark suite between these two GPUs consists of two tests, and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 5600M scores 59,589 against the PRO W6400's 35,027. This 70.1% delta is the largest margin in any comparison between the two. OpenCL is a compute API used in scientific, engineering, and rendering workloads, so this result indicates the RX 5600M has a decisive edge in compute tasks. The PRO W6400's lower shader count (768 versus 2304) and narrower memory bus (64-bit versus 192-bit) explain much of this gap.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 5600M scores 48,843 and the PRO W6400 scores 39,286, a 24.3% lead. Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API commonly used in gaming and real-time applications. The RX 5600M's advantage here is smaller than in OpenCL but still clear. The PRO W6400's higher clock speeds (2039 MHz base, 2321 MHz boost) and newer RDNA 2.0 architecture help it close some of the gap, but the RX 5600M's superior memory bandwidth and shader count prevail.

Looking beyond the head-to-head results, the RX 5600M also has recorded scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (1,320) and Geekbench Metal (76,653), while the PRO W6400 has no recorded results in those tests. The RX 5600M's Metal score of 76,653 is particularly strong and indicates excellent performance in Apple ecosystem applications. The PRO W6400's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, -0.9%), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628, -1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, -1.3%). The RX 5600M's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, 0%), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46,702, -0.2%), and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 (46,043, 1.2%).

These rival comparisons contextualize the two GPUs. The RX 5600M sits in a performance class alongside modern midrange mobile and workstation GPUs, while the PRO W6400 sits closer to older desktop flagships like the RX Vega 56. The data does not show a single test where the PRO W6400 beats the RX 5600M, so the RX 5600M is the clear performance leader in this pairing.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture on a 7 nm process, while the PRO W6400 uses Navi 24 with RDNA 2.0 on a 6 nm process. The RX 5600M has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die (41.0M per mm²), while the PRO W6400 has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die (50.5M per mm²).

Clock speeds favor the PRO W6400: it runs at 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost, versus 1035 MHz base and 1265 MHz boost for the RX 5600M. The RX 5600M also has a game clock of 1190 MHz, while the PRO W6400 has no game clock listed. Memory clocks differ as well: the RX 5600M runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the PRO W6400 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the RX 5600M. It has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Shader resources also favor the RX 5600M: 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the PRO W6400. The PRO W6400 counters with 12 ray tracing cores, which the RX 5600M lacks.

Pixel and texture rates tell a nuanced story. The RX 5600M has a pixel rate of 80.96 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 182.2 GTexel/s. The PRO W6400 has a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s. The RX 5600M leads in both, but the pixel rate gap is small (80.96 versus 74.27), reflecting the PRO W6400's high clocks. Floating-point performance heavily favors the RX 5600M: 5.829 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.66 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), versus 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 and 7.130 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) for the PRO W6400.

Power and physical specs also diverge. The RX 5600M has a 150 W TDP and is listed as an IGP with no power connectors, while the PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the PRO W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs differ: the PRO W6400 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 5600M's outputs are portable device dependent. API support also differs: the RX 5600M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the PRO W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates place the RX 5600M in July 2020 and the PRO W6400 in January 2022, with both marked as end-of-life.