AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 590 GME Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME represent two very different philosophies from the same manufacturer, one aimed at professional workloads and the other at consumer gaming. The recorded data shows a clear split in capabilities, with the RX 590 GME dominating in the available benchmark suite, while the PRO W6400 counters with architectural efficiency that has implications beyond raw scores. This analysis examines the recorded measurements to determine what each card offers based solely on the database facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two benchmark results, and the AMD Radeon RX 590 GME wins both. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 590 GME scores 36,294 against the PRO W6400’s 35,027, a difference of 3.5%. This is a modest margin, indicating that in this particular compute workload, the two cards are relatively close, despite their vastly different architectures and specifications. The PRO W6400’s newer RDNA 2.0 design appears to close much of the gap that its smaller memory bus and lower transistor count would suggest.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a much more pronounced victory for the RX 590 GME. Here, it scores 60,508, while the PRO W6400 manages only 39,286. This represents a 35.1% deficit for the PRO W6400. This is a significant disparity, suggesting that the RX 590 GME’s higher raw throughput and larger memory subsystem provide a substantial advantage in this specific graphics API workload. The delta is so large that it likely reflects the fundamental differences in shading units, texture mapping units, and memory bandwidth between the two cards.

Looking at the broader database context, the RX 590 GME’s average benchmark score is 32,601, which places it in the 77th percentile of all GPUs. The PRO W6400, despite losing both head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score of 37,157, placing it in the 80th percentile. This is an interesting inversion: the PRO W6400 performs better on average across the entire database, yet loses in both shared tests. This suggests that the PRO W6400’s strengths may lie in other, unrecorded workloads, or that the RX 590 GME’s wins are concentrated in specific areas.

The nearest rivals for the PRO W6400 include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, which is only 0.9% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which is 1.7% behind. For the RX 590 GME, its closest rival is the AMD FirePro S9300 X2, which is only 0.2% behind, and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile, which is 0.8% ahead. These tight margins show that both cards sit in competitive performance bands, with the PRO W6400’s average score being notably higher than its direct competitor in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37,157, which is higher than the RX 590 GME’s 32,601. The PRO W6400 also sits in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 590 GME sits in the 77th percentile.

Q: In which benchmark does the RX 590 GME have its largest lead over the PRO W6400?

A: The RX 590 GME’s largest lead is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 60,508 compared to the PRO W6400’s 39,286, a 35.1% advantage. This is a much larger margin than the 3.5% lead it holds in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Does the PRO W6400 win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No, the recorded data shows the PRO W6400 loses both head-to-head tests. The RX 590 GME wins in Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, giving it a total of 2 wins to 0 for the PRO W6400.

Q: How does the PRO W6400 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 has an average score of 37,648, which is 1.3% higher than the PRO W6400’s 37,157. This places the PRO W6400 slightly behind that rival in the database’s average score rankings.

Q: What is the difference in percentile ranking between these two cards?

A: The PRO W6400 is in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 590 GME is in the 77th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head tests, the PRO W6400 ranks higher overall in the database.

Q: Is the RX 590 GME’s closest rival a similar consumer card?

A: No, the RX 590 GME’s closest rival is the AMD FirePro S9300 X2, a professional card, which is only 0.2% behind in average score. This suggests the RX 590 GME’s performance profile is competitive with workstation-oriented hardware.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended usage. The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME is the superior card for the workloads captured in the shared benchmarks, winning both recorded tests with a particularly dominant performance in Vulkan. Its 2304 shading units and 256 GB/s of memory bandwidth give it a raw compute advantage that the PRO W6400 cannot match in these specific scenarios. For any user prioritizing the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan metrics, the RX 590 GME is the obvious choice.

However, the PRO W6400’s higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking suggest it is not simply an inferior product. The database shows it performs better on average across all recorded tests, which implies it excels in workloads not covered by the head-to-head suite. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it a much more efficient and space-conscious option. The data suggests a professional user, who values overall consistency and efficiency, might prefer the PRO W6400, while a gamer or compute-focused user would lean toward the RX 590 GME.

The verdict is not a blanket endorsement of either card. The RX 590 GME wins where it counts in the shared tests, but the PRO W6400’s architectural advantages are visible in its overall database standing. Users should weigh the specific benchmark results against the broader performance profile when making a decision.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every key specification. The PRO W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the RX 590 GME uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering double the bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s. The RX 590 GME also has significantly more compute units: 2304 shading units and 144 texture mapping units, compared to the PRO W6400’s 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. Both have 32 raster operation units.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The PRO W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, while the RX 590 GME has a base clock of 1257 MHz and a boost clock of 1420 MHz. The RX 590 GME’s memory runs at 8 Gbps effective, while the PRO W6400’s memory runs at 16 Gbps effective. The PRO W6400’s higher clock speeds partially offset its lower core count, but not enough to overcome the RX 590 GME’s raw throughput.

The physical and power characteristics are also divergent. The PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 590 GME has a 175 W TDP, is dual-slot, and requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The PRO W6400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface, while the RX 590 GME uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 590 GME also has a longer length of 241 mm, while the PRO W6400’s length is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The PRO W6400 is built on the Navi 24 chip using the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The RX 590 GME uses the Polaris 20 chip with the GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The PRO W6400’s newer process node allows for a much higher transistor density of 50.5M per mm², compared to the RX 590 GME’s 24.6M per mm². The PRO W6400 has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, while the RX 590 GME has 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die.

The PRO W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 590 GME. This is a key generational difference, as RDNA 2.0 supports hardware ray tracing while GCN 4.0 does not. The PRO W6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 590 GME supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The memory technology differs as well, with the PRO W6400 using GDDR6 and the RX 590 GME using GDDR5. The PRO W6400’s FP32 performance is 3.565 TFLOPS, while the RX 590 GME’s is 6.543 TFLOPS. The RX 590 GME also has a higher texture rate of 204.5 GTexel/s, while the PRO W6400 manages 111.4 GTexel/s. However, the PRO W6400 has a higher pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s compared to the RX 590 GME’s 45.44 GPixel/s, a reversal that highlights the newer architecture’s efficiency in certain operations.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 590 GME wins decisively in the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, particularly in Geekbench Vulkan where it is 35.1% faster. Its higher FP32 throughput and double memory bandwidth make it well-suited for compute-heavy tasks and games that leverage its raw shading power. The 8 GB memory capacity also gives it an advantage in scenarios where larger textures or datasets are required. Its predecessor is listed as Arctic Islands, and its successor is Vega, indicating its place in a lineage focused on consumer performance.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in overall database standing, with a higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot design make it far more power-efficient, and its 12 ray tracing cores give it capabilities the RX 590 GME lacks. The PRO W6400’s higher pixel rate suggests it may excel in tasks that involve heavy pixel processing, and its newer RDNA 2.0 architecture with DirectX 12 Ultimate support positions it for modern graphical features. Its predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, indicating a professional lineage focused on reliability and efficiency.

In practical terms, the RX 590 GME is the winner for users who prioritize the specific benchmark scores recorded, especially Vulkan performance. The PRO W6400 is the winner for users who value efficiency, modern features like ray tracing, and overall consistency across a broader range of unrecorded workloads. The data does not declare a single champion; it reveals two cards optimized for different priorities.