AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two RDNA 2.0 parts. In the two shared benchmark tests, the AMD Radeon RX 6700 wins outright, with the PRO W6400 trailing by a significant margin in both compute and graphics workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL result is the most lopsided: the RX 6700 scores 97,841 against the PRO W6400's 35,027, a delta of -64.2% for the smaller card. This means the RX 6700 delivers roughly 2.8 times the raw compute throughput in this API, a gap that reflects far more than a simple clock-speed difference.

The Vulkan result narrows the gap slightly but still favors the RX 6700 heavily. The RX 6700 posts 83,974, while the PRO W6400 manages 39,286, a delta of -53.2%. Even in this lower-level graphics API, the RX 6700 is about 2.1 times faster. For context, the PRO W6400's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 37,157, which places it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 6700, by contrast, has an average score of 30,433 across a much larger test suite, but that figure is dragged down by several low-scoring legacy DirectX tests; its headline Geekbench scores are far higher.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the PRO W6400 sits in a competitive cluster. Its average score of 37,157 is within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648) and within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507). This indicates that while the PRO W6400 loses badly to the RX 6700 in direct comparison, it is not an outlier in its own performance tier; it trades blows with much more expensive gaming cards on compute-heavy synthetic loads. The RX 6700, meanwhile, has an average score of 30,433, which is nearly identical to the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (30,476, delta -0.1%) and the NVIDIA Tesla M60 (30,490, delta -0.2%). This means the RX 6700's average is skewed by its Passmark results, but its Geekbench scores place it in a much higher league. In the head-to-head, the wins tally is 2-0 in favor of the RX 6700, with no recorded benchmark where the PRO W6400 comes out ahead.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the RDNA 2.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC, but they are built on different nodes and have radically different die configurations. The PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm process, while the RX 6700 uses the Navi 22 chip on a 7 nm process. This node difference is notable: the smaller process allows the PRO W6400 to pack 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The RX 6700, despite being on the older 7 nm node, packs 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, which works out to 51.3 million per square millimeter. The densities are nearly identical, but the RX 6700 has over three times the absolute transistor count and over three times the die area.

The execution resources differ by a factor of three across the board. The PRO W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operations pipelines. The RX 6700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is exactly three times the shader and texture hardware, and double the ROP count. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: the PRO W6400 has 12, the RX 6700 has 36. The clock speeds are closer than the resource counts might suggest. The PRO W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, while the RX 6700 has a lower base of 1941 MHz but a higher boost of 2450 MHz, with a game clock of 2174 MHz. The higher boost on the RX 6700, combined with the massive resource advantage, explains the performance gap.

Memory is another major divider. The PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s. That is 2.5 times the capacity and 2.5 times the bandwidth. The effective memory clock is the same at 16 Gbps, but the wider bus on the RX 6700 changes everything. The PRO W6400's memory subsystem is clearly designed for low-power, low-bandwidth workloads, while the RX 6700 is built for sustained high-resolution rendering. The pixel rate tells the story: the PRO W6400 outputs 74.27 GPixel/s, while the RX 6700 outputs 156.8 GPixel/s, more than double. Texture rate is even more lopsided, at 111.4 GTexel/s for the PRO W6400 versus 352.8 GTexel/s for the RX 6700.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the nature of its wins suggests different use cases. In OpenCL compute, the RX 6700's 97,841 versus 35,027 is a 64.2% advantage, which points to heavy GPU compute tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or machine learning inference. The RX 6700's 11.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the PRO W6400, is the hardware reason. For Vulkan gaming and modern graphics workloads, the RX 6700's 83,974 versus 39,286 is a 53.2% advantage, driven by its 36 ray tracing cores and 2,304 shading units. The RX 6700 also has double the ROPs, which helps with fill-rate-bound scenarios at high resolutions.

The PRO W6400, despite losing the head-to-head, has its own strengths. Its 50 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RX 6700's 175 W, and it requires no power connectors, while the RX 6700 needs a single 8-pin connector. The PRO W6400 is single-slot, while the RX 6700 is dual-slot. This makes the PRO W6400 suitable for compact, low-power workstations where physical space and thermal headroom are at a premium. Its suggested PSU of 250 W, versus 450 W for the RX 6700, reinforces this positioning. The PRO W6400 also has a higher base clock (2039 MHz versus 1941 MHz), which can help in latency-sensitive, lightly-threaded workloads where boost clocks are not sustained.

The RX 6700 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. With 10 GB versus 4 GB, the RX 6700 can handle workloads that would exceed the PRO W6400's frame buffer entirely. The RX 6700's 320.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 128.0 GB/s means it can feed its shader array much more effectively. In practical terms, the RX 6700 is the choice for anything that involves modern gaming, large-scale 3D rendering, or compute-heavy GPU tasks. The PRO W6400 is the choice for a low-profile, low-power auxiliary GPU or a basic workstation card where the workload is modest and the power budget is tight.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 6 nm for the PRO W6400 versus 7 nm for the RX 6700. Transistor count is 5,400 million versus 17,200 million, and die size is 107 mm² versus 335 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 50.5M/mm² versus 51.3M/mm². Base clock is 2039 MHz versus 1941 MHz, boost clock is 2321 MHz versus 2450 MHz, and the RX 6700 has a game clock of 2174 MHz that the PRO W6400 lacks. Memory size is 4 GB versus 10 GB, bus width is 64-bit versus 160-bit, and bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s. The memory type is GDDR6 for both, with the same 16 Gbps effective speed.

Shading units are 768 versus 2,304, TMUs are 48 versus 144, ROPs are 32 versus 64, and RT cores are 12 versus 36. Pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 156.8 GPixel/s, texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 352.8 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 3.565 TFLOPS versus 11.29 TFLOPS. FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS versus 22.58 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio. TDP is 50 W versus 175 W. Slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are none versus one 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 450 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 2x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6700 also has physical dimensions (267 mm length, 110 mm height, 40 mm width) while the PRO W6400 has none recorded. Both share the same API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both are end-of-life, with the PRO W6400 releasing on 2022-01-18 and the RX 6700 on 2021-06-08.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 97,841, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35,027. The RX 6700 wins by a delta of -64.2% from the PRO W6400's perspective.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 6700 scores 83,974 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 39,286 for the PRO W6400. That is a 53.2% advantage for the RX 6700.

Q: Do these cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use RDNA 2.0. However, the PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm process, while the RX 6700 uses the Navi 22 chip on a 7 nm process.

Q: What is the memory difference?

A: The PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 6700 has 2,304 shading units, exactly three times the 768 shading units on the PRO W6400. The RX 6700 also has three times the TMUs (144 versus 48) and double the ROPs (64 versus 32).

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connectors, while the RX 6700 has a 175 W TDP and requires a single 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the PRO W6400 and 450 W for the RX 6700.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. Its OpenCL score is 64.2% higher and its Vulkan score is 53.2% higher than the PRO W6400. The RX 6700 has three times the shading units, three times the texture units, double the ROPs, three times the ray tracing cores, and 2.5 times the memory bandwidth. Any user prioritizing raw compute, modern gaming, or high-resolution rendering should choose the RX 6700 without hesitation. Its 11.29 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput versus 3.565 TFLOPS makes it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is not without a purpose. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for low-power, space-constrained systems where the RX 6700's 175 W TDP and dual-slot footprint would be problematic. The PRO W6400 also has a higher base clock, which can be beneficial in specific latency-sensitive tasks. However, the benchmark data shows that even in its best case, the PRO W6400 is 53.2% behind the RX 6700. The RX 6700 also has a much larger memory pool and wider bus, which means it will not run out of memory on workloads that would max out the PRO W6400's 4 GB frame buffer. For any workload where performance matters, the RX 6700 is the answer. For a minimal-power auxiliary GPU, the PRO W6400 has a niche, but it is a niche defined by constraints, not capability.