AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile takes both head-to-head victories, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 records no direct wins in the shared test suite. This is not a close contest in raw compute workloads; the NVIDIA part leads by a substantial margin in OpenCL and a narrower but still decisive gap in Vulkan.

Breaking down the workload split, the RTX 3050 Mobile dominates in OpenCL, which typically reflects general compute and GPGPU tasks. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 50038 versus 35027 gives the NVIDIA card a 30% advantage, a gap large enough to matter in any compute-heavy professional application. The Vulkan result is closer, with the RTX 3050 Mobile scoring 49051 against 39286, a 19.9% lead, suggesting that graphics API workloads narrow the gap somewhat but still favor NVIDIA.

The AMD card's strengths lie elsewhere, specifically in its architectural profile rather than its benchmark results. The W6400 operates at significantly higher clocks, with a base of 2039 MHz and boost of 2321 MHz, compared to the RTX 3050 Mobile's 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost. This clock advantage does not translate into benchmark wins, however, as the NVIDIA card compensates with a much larger shader count and wider memory bus. For users prioritizing raw measured performance in the database's compute tests, the RTX 3050 Mobile is the outright winner in both categories.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, by contrast, uses the GA107 chip with Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 8,700 million transistors spread across a 200 mm² die, with a lower density of 43.5 million per square millimeter.

The compute configuration differs sharply. The RTX 3050 Mobile fields 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA also brings 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores to the table. AMD counters with 12 ray accelerators but no tensor core equivalent. This explains the FP32 throughput difference: the RTX 3050 Mobile delivers 5.501 TFLOPS versus the W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS. In FP16, the NVIDIA card sustains 5.501 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while AMD reaches 7.130 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning AMD's FP16 is actually higher but requires rate conversion.

Memory architecture also diverges significantly. Both cards use 4 GB of GDDR6, but the bus widths differ: the W6400 runs a 64 bit interface producing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the RTX 3050 Mobile uses a 128 bit bus yielding 192.0 GB/s. Memory clocks also differ, with AMD at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and NVIDIA at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The wider bus more than compensates for NVIDIA's lower memory clock. Power envelopes are comparable, at 50 W for AMD and 45 W for NVIDIA, though the AMD card is single-slot while NVIDIA is integrated (IGP). The bus interface also differs, with PCIe 4.0 x4 on AMD versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, both in Geekbench workloads. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile scores 50038 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 35027. This yields a delta of -30% from the AMD card's perspective, meaning the W6400 trails by 30%. In practical terms, this is a substantial compute performance gap, one that would be noticeable in any OpenCL-accelerated rendering, simulation, or data processing task.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, which shows a smaller but still decisive NVIDIA advantage. The RTX 3050 Mobile scores 49051, while the W6400 manages 39286. The delta here is -19.9%, meaning AMD closes roughly a third of the gap compared to OpenCL but still loses by a clear margin. Vulkan workloads, which often reflect gaming and real-time graphics performance, reward the NVIDIA card's higher shader count and wider memory bandwidth, though AMD's higher clock speeds help narrow the difference.

Looking at the broader database context, the W6400 holds an average benchmark score of 37157 across all recorded tests, while the RTX 3050 Mobile averages 33170. This is an interesting inversion: the NVIDIA card wins both head-to-head tests but has a lower overall average because it also includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 421, which pulls its average down. The W6400, with only OpenCL and Vulkan results, maintains a higher average. The percentile rankings reflect this nuance: the W6400 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 Mobile sits at the 78th percentile.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these scores. The W6400's closest competitors are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37507, -0.9% delta), NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37628, -1.3%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37648, -1.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36530, +1.7%). The RTX 3050 Mobile's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA T550 Mobile (33161, 0% delta), AMD Radeon Pro 570 (33207, -0.1%), NVIDIA P104-100 (32982, +0.6%), and NVIDIA T600 Mobile (32849, +1%). These comparisons show that while the RTX 3050 Mobile wins the direct head-to-head, the W6400 actually sits in a higher overall performance tier when all database results are considered.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile wins with a score of 50038 versus the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 35027, a 30% advantage.

Q: Is the Vulkan gap smaller than the OpenCL gap?

A: Yes. In Vulkan, the RTX 3050 Mobile scores 49051 against the W6400's 39286, a 19.9% lead, which is narrower than the 30% OpenCL gap.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory size?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR6, but the bus widths differ: the W6400 uses 64 bit (128.0 GB/s bandwidth), while the RTX 3050 Mobile uses 128 bit (192.0 GB/s bandwidth).

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD W6400 has a density of 50.5 million transistors per mm² on its 107 mm² die, while the RTX 3050 Mobile has 43.5 million per mm² on a 200 mm² die.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The W6400 averages 37157 across its recorded tests, which is higher than the RTX 3050 Mobile's 33170, despite losing both direct head-to-head tests.

Q: Does the RTX 3050 Mobile have tensor cores?

A: Yes, it includes 64 tensor cores, a feature the W6400 lacks entirely.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is the stronger performer in direct compute comparisons. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 30% lead in OpenCL and a 19.9% lead in Vulkan. Users prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads should select the RTX 3050 Mobile without hesitation. Its higher shader count, wider memory bus, and tensor core support give it a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome.

However, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 presents a more nuanced case. Its average benchmark score of 37157 exceeds the RTX 3050 Mobile's 33170, and its 80th percentile ranking among all GPUs beats NVIDIA's 78th. This suggests that in the broader database context, the W6400 performs at a higher tier overall, despite losing the specific tests where both cards were measured. The W6400 also offers a higher FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS versus 5.501 TFLOPS, which could matter for workloads that leverage FP16 acceleration.

For professional users, the choice depends on workload specifics. The RTX 3050 Mobile is the safer bet for general compute, given its decisive OpenCL win and solid Vulkan showing. The W6400, with its higher transistor density, smaller die, and lower power draw at 50 W, may appeal to those prioritizing efficiency per square millimeter or those whose applications favor FP16 compute. The data does not support a clear overall winner; it supports a split decision based on the specific benchmark priorities of the user.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 8 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 1065 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1343 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 42.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 85.95 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.565 TFLOPS | 5.501 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 45 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2021-05-10 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |