AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA CMP 70HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins both recorded benchmark tests against the NVIDIA CMP 70HX. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 35,027 against 25,135 for the NVIDIA card, a 39.4% advantage. That is a substantial margin, one that places the W6400 in a different performance class in this specific workload despite its much smaller physical footprint. The Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably, but the AMD part still leads with 39,286 versus 35,817, a 9.7% difference. The W6400 therefore claims 2 wins out of 2 in the head-to-head comparison.

The OpenCL result deserves closer inspection. A 39.4% delta is not a marginal edge; it suggests the Radeon PRO W6400 is delivering fundamentally better compute throughput in that API context. The Vulkan result, while still a win for AMD, shows the CMP 70HX is far more competitive when the workload shifts to Vulkan. This implies the NVIDIA card's architecture is better suited to Vulkan's execution model, or that driver optimization differences are less pronounced there. Either way, the data records the W6400 as the winner in both categories, but the shape of the victory differs meaningfully.

Looking at the broader database context, the W6400's average benchmark score of 37,157 places it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37,507 (0.9% higher), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37,628 (1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37,648 (1.3% higher). The W6400 also sits 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which scores 36,530. This clustering around the 37,000 mark indicates the W6400 is operating in a dense competitive band where small percentage differences separate many cards. The CMP 70HX, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 30,476, placing it in the 75th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Tesla M60 at 30,490 (0% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6700 at 30,433 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 6800 at 30,095 (1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti at 29,945 (1.8% higher). The CMP 70HX thus sits in a slightly lower performance band, roughly 18% below the W6400's average score when comparing the two directly.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in raw compute benchmarks as recorded, but the nature of those wins matters for real-world use. Its OpenCL lead of 39.4% over the CMP 70HX is the standout result. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and a lead of that size suggests the W6400 is the stronger choice for workloads that rely heavily on OpenCL compute kernels. The card also wins in Vulkan, though the 9.7% margin is more modest. Vulkan is increasingly common in modern rendering engines, so a win there still matters, but the gap is not as emphatic.

The NVIDIA CMP 70HX does not win any recorded benchmark, so the data does not support any use case where it outperforms the W6400 in the tests listed. However, the hardware specifications point to areas where the CMP 70HX might be expected to excel in workloads not covered by these two benchmarks, even if the recorded data cannot confirm it. The CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 608.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s. For memory-bound tasks, the CMP 70HX has a theoretical bandwidth advantage that is not reflected in the Geekbench compute scores. The CMP 70HX also has 120 tensor cores, which the W6400 lacks entirely, suggesting AI and deep learning inference workloads could favor the NVIDIA card in scenarios not measured by these tests. The data, however, records only two benchmark results, and the CMP 70HX loses both.

The W6400 also wins on efficiency in the recorded data. Its TDP is 50 W against the CMP 70HX, for which TDP is not recorded in the database. The W6400's suggested PSU is 250 W, and it requires no power connectors, drawing entirely from the PCIe slot. The CMP 70HX requires a 12-pin power connector and has a suggested PSU of 200 W, a lower number but with a larger physical card (267 mm long, 112 mm high, dual-slot). The W6400 is single-slot with no length or height recorded. For compact systems or those with limited power delivery, the W6400 is the more accommodating option based on the recorded specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturers and different architectures, and the gap in their design philosophies is stark. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA CMP 70HX uses the GA104 chip built on Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. That chip contains 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die, yielding a density of 44.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is more than three times larger in die area and packs over three times the transistor count, but its density is lower due to the older 8 nm process.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The CMP 70HX has 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 30 ray tracing cores, and 120 tensor cores. The CMP 70HX has five times the shading units and ten times the tensor cores. The FP32 throughput tells the same story: 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400 versus 10.71 TFLOPS for the CMP 70HX. The FP16 numbers are also lopsided, with the W6400 reaching 7.130 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio while the CMP 70HX reaches 10.71 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. Yet despite this theoretical compute advantage, the CMP 70HX loses both recorded benchmarks. This suggests that raw shader count and FP32 throughput do not translate directly into Geekbench scores, or that the CMP 70HX is constrained elsewhere, possibly by drivers, clock behavior, or workload characteristics.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz. The CMP 70HX has a base clock of 1365 MHz and a boost clock of 1395 MHz. The AMD card runs at much higher frequencies, which helps explain how a smaller chip with fewer shaders can win compute benchmarks. Memory clocks differ too: the W6400 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the CMP 70HX runs at 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective. The CMP 70HX's wider bus and faster effective memory speed give it far more bandwidth, but again, the benchmarks do not favor it.

The bus interfaces are notably different. The W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the CMP 70HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4. The CMP 70HX's bus interface is severely outdated, which could bottleneck data transfers in some workloads despite its large memory bandwidth. The W6400 also has display outputs (2x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the CMP 70HX has no display outputs at all. This reflects their intended markets: the W6400 is a professional Radeon Pro card for workstations, while the CMP 70HX is a mining GPU with no video output. The API support is identical on paper, with both supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37,157, while the NVIDIA CMP 70HX has an average of 30,476. The W6400 sits in the 80th percentile of all GPUs, and the CMP 70HX sits in the 75th percentile.

Q: How large is the W6400's lead in the OpenCL test?

A: The W6400 scores 35,027 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 25,135 for the CMP 70HX, a 39.4% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the CMP 70HX win any benchmark in the recorded data?

A: No, the CMP 70HX loses both head-to-head benchmarks. The W6400 wins the OpenCL test by 39.4% and the Vulkan test by 9.7%.

Q: Why might the CMP 70HX have an advantage in memory-heavy workloads despite losing the benchmarks?

A: The CMP 70HX has 8 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 256-bit bus with 608.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The recorded benchmarks do not reflect this bandwidth advantage, but memory-bound tasks could potentially favor the CMP 70HX.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The W6400's Navi 24 chip has a density of 50.5 million transistors per mm² on a 6 nm TSMC process. The CMP 70HX's GA104 chip has a density of 44.4 million transistors per mm² on an 8 nm Samsung process.

Q: Does the CMP 70HX have tensor cores?

A: Yes, the CMP 70HX has 120 tensor cores. The W6400 has no tensor cores listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 architecture with a Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process. The CMP 70HX uses Ampere architecture with a GA104 chip on an 8 nm Samsung process. The W6400 has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The CMP 70HX has 17,400 million transistors on a 392 mm² die. Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² for the W6400 and 44.4M per mm² for the CMP 70HX.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost of 2321 MHz. The CMP 70HX has a base of 1365 MHz and a boost of 1395 MHz. Memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the W6400, versus 1188 MHz with 19 Gbps effective for the CMP 70HX. Memory configuration is 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth for the W6400, against 8 GB GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus with 608.3 GB/s bandwidth for the CMP 70HX.

Compute resources are dramatically different. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The CMP 70HX has 3,840 shading units, 120 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 30 ray tracing cores, and 120 tensor cores. The FP32 throughput is 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400 and 10.71 TFLOPS for the CMP 70HX. FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) for the W6400 and 10.71 TFLOPS (1:1) for the CMP 70HX. Pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s versus 89.28 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 167.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The W6400 has a TDP of 50 W, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The CMP 70HX has no TDP recorded, is dual-slot, requires one 12-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 200 W. The CMP 70HX measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height; the W6400 has no dimensions recorded. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 for the W6400 and PCIe 1.0 x4 for the CMP 70HX. Display outputs are 2x DisplayPort 1.4a for the W6400 and none for the CMP 70HX. The W6400 was released on 2022-01-18 and is end-of-life; the CMP 70HX has no release date recorded and is also end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 as the stronger card in recorded benchmark performance. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (37,157 versus 30,476), and sits higher in the percentile ranking (80th versus 75th). Its OpenCL lead of 39.4% is the single most decisive result in the comparison. The W6400 is also the more practical card for general workstation use: it has display outputs, a much lower TDP of 50 W, no power connector requirement, and a single-slot design. It is built on a more advanced 6 nm process with higher transistor density, and its boost clock of 2321 MHz far exceeds the CMP 70HX's 1395 MHz.

The NVIDIA CMP 70HX, however, has theoretical advantages that the recorded benchmarks do not capture. Its 8 GB GDDR6X memory with 608.3 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the W6400's 4 GB GDDR6 with 128.0 GB/s. Its 120 tensor cores and 10.71 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput are far beyond the W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS. The CMP 70HX also has a much larger die with more than three times the transistor count. But none of this translates into a benchmark win in the recorded tests. The card has no display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 bus interface, which may hamper data transfer in many systems.

The verdict depends on the use case. For anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads on a standard workstation, the W6400 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. It wins the benchmarks, uses far less power, fits in smaller systems, and offers display connectivity. For tasks that require massive memory bandwidth or tensor core acceleration, the CMP 70HX has the hardware specifications that could matter, but the database does not include benchmarks that demonstrate this. The data as recorded favors the W6400 in measurable performance and practical usability, while the CMP 70HX remains a niche product with impressive specifications that do not translate into wins in the tests performed.