AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How close are the average benchmark scores of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400?

A: The RX Vega 56 has an average benchmark score of 37,507, while the PRO W6400 scores 37,157. This puts the Vega 56 ahead by roughly 0.9% (a deltaPct of -0.9 for the PRO W6400 when compared to it). For practical purposes, the overall average scores are nearly identical.

Q: Which card has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX Vega 56 sits at the 81st percentile, while the PRO W6400 sits at the 80th percentile. This is a difference of just one percentile point, confirming that both cards are considered very close in overall performance distribution.

Q: What are the distinct benchmark results for each card?

A: The RX Vega 56 has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,501 and a Geekbench Metal score of 73,512. The PRO W6400 has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 35,027 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 39,286. The Vega 56's scores are from different test suites than the PRO W6400's, so they cannot be directly compared.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between these two?

A: The RX Vega 56 uses 8 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The PRO W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Vega 56 has double the memory capacity and over triple the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the power and physical requirements for each card?

A: The RX Vega 56 has a 210 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU. The PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and only needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The PRO W6400 is far more power-efficient and physically smaller.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The PRO W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX Vega 56 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The PRO W6400 has a more recent DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different eras of AMD GPU design. The RX Vega 56 is built on the Vega 10 chip using the GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip with the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This generational leap is stark: the Vega 10 die is 495 mm² with 12,500 million transistors, while the Navi 24 die is just 107 mm² with 5,400 million transistors. Despite the smaller size, the PRO W6400 has a dramatically higher transistor density of 50.5M per mm² versus 25.3M per mm² for the Vega 56.

The shader configuration is also radically different. The RX Vega 56 packs 3,584 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 94.14 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 329.5 GTexel/s. The PRO W6400 has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, yielding 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s. However, the PRO W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, while the Vega 56 has none. The Vega 56 does output higher raw compute: 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the PRO W6400, and 21.09 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) versus 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1).

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Vega 56 runs at a base clock of 1156 MHz and a boost of 1471 MHz, while the PRO W6400 boosts to 2321 MHz from a 2039 MHz base. The PRO W6400's higher clocks compensate partially for its fewer cores, but the Vega 56 retains a massive lead in raw throughput. The memory subsystem follows a similar divide: the Vega 56 uses HBM2 with 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) and a 2048-bit bus, while the PRO W6400 uses GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus. The Vega 56's memory bandwidth advantage is decisive.

The Verdict

The data shows two cards that land near the same overall performance tier but achieve it through very different means. The RX Vega 56 is the brute-force option: a large, power-hungry, dual-slot card with 210 W TDP, two 8-pin connectors, and a 550 W PSU requirement. The PRO W6400 is the efficiency champion: a 50 W, single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W PSU suggestion. If you have a system that can feed and cool the Vega 56, it offers roughly 0.9% higher average benchmark score, more memory, and far higher bandwidth. If you need a low-profile, low-power solution for a small form factor or office workstation, the PRO W6400 is the obvious choice.

The PRO W6400 also brings modern features: DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4, and 12 ray tracing cores. The Vega 56 lacks ray tracing support and tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. For gaming or compute workloads that leverage newer APIs, the PRO W6400 has a feature advantage. However, the Vega 56's 8 GB VRAM versus 4 GB means it can handle larger textures and datasets without spilling over. The verdict hinges on your workload: raw compute and memory capacity favor the Vega 56; efficiency, modern API support, and compactness favor the PRO W6400.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400:

• Chip: Vega 10 vs Navi 24
• Architecture: GCN 5.0 vs RDNA 2.0
• Process Node: 14 nm vs 6 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs TSMC
• Transistors: 12,500 million vs 5,400 million
• Die Size: 495 mm² vs 107 mm²
• Transistor Density: 25.3M / mm² vs 50.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1156 MHz vs 2039 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1471 MHz vs 2321 MHz
• Memory Clock: 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) vs 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Type: HBM2 vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 2048 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 3584 vs 768
• TMUs: 224 vs 48
• ROPs: 64 vs 32
• RT Cores: None vs 12
• Pixel Rate: 94.14 GPixel/s vs 74.27 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 329.5 GTexel/s vs 111.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 10.54 TFLOPS vs 3.565 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 21.09 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 210 W vs 50 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: 2x 8-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x4
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a vs 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.3 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 280 mm (11 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 40 mm (1.6 inches) width vs not specified
• Release Date: 2017-08-13 vs 2022-01-18
• Predecessor: Polaris vs Radeon Pro Vega
• Successor: Navi vs None
• Launch MSRP: 399 USD vs Not available

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark entries in the data, so the comparison relies on average scores and nearest-rival deltas. The RX Vega 56 averages 37,507, which places it 0.3% below the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628), 0.4% below the GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648), 0.9% above the PRO W6400 (37,157), and 1.6% below the RTX 4080 Mobile (38,135). The PRO W6400 averages 37,157, putting it 0.9% below the Vega 56, 1.3% below both the Tesla P4 and RTX 4070, and 1.7% above the GTX TITAN X (36,530).

The biggest win for the Vega 56 relative to the PRO W6400 is its 0.9% higher average score. In isolation, that is a narrow margin. However, the Vega 56's individual benchmark results—1,501 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 73,512 in Geekbench Metal—show strength in DX12 and Metal workloads. The PRO W6400 counters with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 39,286, which is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 35,027, suggesting Vulkan is a strong point for the RDNA 2.0 card.

The percentile rankings reinforce the near-tie: 81st for the Vega 56 and 80th for the PRO W6400. The deltaPct values in the rivals list show that both cards cluster tightly with the Tesla P4 and RTX 4070, within a range of roughly 1.7% either way. Neither card has a decisive overall performance advantage; the differences in average score are within noise margins. The real differentiators are architectural: the Vega 56's 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 versus the PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS, and the 409.6 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, are massive gaps in theoretical throughput that do not translate into equally large benchmark gaps, likely due to driver maturity and workload characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

The RX Vega 56 wins in raw compute and memory-intensive scenarios. Its 10.54 TFLOPS FP32 is nearly three times the PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 329.5 GTexel/s is nearly three times higher than 111.4 GTexel/s. Its 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is over three times the PRO W6400's 128.0 GB/s. For workloads that scale with these metrics—such as large dataset processing, high-resolution texture workloads, or compute-heavy tasks—the Vega 56 has a clear theoretical edge. It also holds a 0.9% average benchmark score advantage and has double the VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB), which matters for running larger models or higher-resolution assets.

The PRO W6400 wins in efficiency and modern feature support. Its 50 W TDP is one-quarter of the Vega 56's 210 W, and it requires no power connectors and only a 250 W PSU. It is single-slot versus dual-slot, making it far easier to fit in compact or dense systems. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the Vega 56's DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The inclusion of 12 ray tracing cores gives it a capability the Vega 56 completely lacks. For productivity workstations where power draw, heat, and slot space are constraints, the PRO W6400 is the practical pick. Its higher boost clock of 2321 MHz versus 1471 MHz also indicates better per-core efficiency, even if the raw core count is lower.

In terms of connectivity, the Vega 56 offers more display outputs: one HDMI 2.0b and three DisplayPort 1.4a versus two DisplayPort 1.4a on the PRO W6400. The Vega 56 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the PRO W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4; the newer standard may offer better bandwidth per lane, but the Vega 56's wider physical interface is a legacy advantage. Ultimately, the Vega 56 is for users who need maximum memory and compute throughput and have the power and space budget. The PRO W6400 is for users who prioritize low power, compactness, and future-proof API support over raw performance.