AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER occupy vastly different corners of the GPU landscape, one a low-power workstation card, the other a high-end enthusiast part. Direct benchmark comparisons show a lopsided contest, but the data also reveals a more nuanced story when considering the specific workloads each card targets. The recorded measurements in the database show the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER winning every head-to-head test, yet the W6400 holds its own in a narrow set of professional scenarios that its rival does not even attempt to address.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these cards: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 199,267 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s 35,027. That is a delta of 82.4% in NVIDIA’s favor, meaning the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers more than five times the raw compute throughput in this workload. This is the largest gap between the two cards in any recorded test, and it reflects the sheer scale of the hardware differences: 8,448 shading units versus 768, 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 versus 3.565 TFLOPS, and 16 GB of GDDR6X versus 4 GB of GDDR6.

In Vulkan, the margin narrows considerably, though NVIDIA still wins. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 53,683, while the W6400 scores 39,286, a delta of 26.8%. This smaller gap suggests that the W6400’s architecture is relatively more efficient in Vulkan’s API-level overhead handling, or that the test itself is less memory-bandwidth sensitive. Still, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is 36.7% ahead in absolute terms, a decisive margin.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the W6400’s average benchmark score is 37,157, placing it in the 80th percentile of all GPUs in the database. 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). Interestingly, the RTX 4070, a much more powerful card than the W6400 in absolute terms, scores nearly identically in this average metric, which indicates that the W6400’s inclusion in the database is weighted toward its specialized professional drivers and low-power design rather than raw gaming performance.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s average benchmark score is 31,087, which sits in the 76th percentile. Its nearest rivals are significantly weaker cards: the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 at 31,206 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q at 31,220 (0.4% higher), and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX at 31,676 (1.9% higher). This is a striking result: despite winning both head-to-head tests decisively, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a lower average benchmark score than the W6400. The explanation lies in the test mix. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s benchmark suite includes PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, where it scores 360, 181, 278, and 119 respectively, plus a PassMark G2D score of 1,225 and a G3D score of 31,811. These older DirectX tests and the 2D test drag down its average, while the W6400’s benchmarks are limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, both of which play to its strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The W6400 wins in the narrow domain of low-power, single-slot professional rendering. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot form factor, with no power connectors required, make it a fit for compact workstations or multi-card configurations where power and space are scarce. Its 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is modest, but for 2D CAD, basic video decode, and light OpenCL compute, it is sufficient. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 39,286, while lower than NVIDIA’s, is still respectable for a card with only 12 ray tracing cores and 768 shading units.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER wins everywhere else. Its 672.3 GB/s bandwidth, 44.10 TFLOPS FP32, and 264 tensor cores make it a compute monster. The OpenCL score of 199,267 is more than 5.7 times the W6400’s, and the Vulkan score of 53,683 is 36.7% higher. For 3D rendering, AI inference, or high-resolution gaming, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is categorically superior. Its 16 GB memory capacity (four times the W6400’s) allows loading large textures, models, or neural network weights that would exhaust the W6400’s 4 GB frame buffer entirely. The PassMark G3D score of 31,811 further confirms its dominance in rasterized workloads, while the W6400 has no equivalent measurement in the database.

The use-case split is clear: the W6400 is for environments where the power draw DPA and physical footprint are the primary constraints, and the workload is light enough that 4 GB and 128.0 GB/s do not become bottlenecks. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is for any scenario where performance per watt is secondary to absolute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different architectures from different generations. The W6400 uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, specifically the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture, with the AD103 chip, on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference (6 nm vs 5 nm) gives NVIDIA a density advantage: the AD103 packs 45,900 million transistors onto a 379 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.1 million per mm². The Navi 24, by contrast, has only 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, for a density of 50.5 million per mm². This is a 2.4x density advantage for NVIDIA, which explains how it fits 11 times more shading units and 5.5 times more texture mapping units into roughly 3.5 times the die area.

Clock speeds also differ. The W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER runs at 2340 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost. Despite the higher clocks, the NVIDIA card’s TDP is 285 W versus the W6400’s 50 W, a 5.7x power draw. This is a dramatic difference in efficiency when scaled per TFLOPS: the W6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS at 50 W (71.3 GFLOPS per watt), while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER delivers 44.10 TFLOPS at 285 W (154.7 GFLOPS per watt). The Ada Lovelace architecture is nearly 2.2 times more energy-efficient in pure FP32 throughput, a fact reflected in the transistor density and process node advantages.

Memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus, yielding 672.3 GB/s, a 5.25x bandwidth advantage. The W6400’s memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s is 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective). The higher effective rate per pin is offset by the wider bus, but the combined effect is overwhelming.

Feature sets differ as well. The W6400 has 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 66 ray tracing cores and 264 tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 in both cases, but the W6400 uses x4 lanes while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses x16, meaning the NVIDIA card has four times the PCIe bandwidth for data transfers. Display outputs also differ: the W6400 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data leads to a straightforward conclusion for most users: the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the superior card in every measured compute metric, and its nearest rivals in the database are cards with similar average scores, not the W6400. The only scenario where the W6400 makes sense from the recorded evidence is when the workload is constrained to low power, single-slot operation, and minimal memory requirements. Its 50 W TDP and no power connectors make it installable in environments where a 285 W card with a 16-pin connector and triple-slot cooler would be impossible.

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s 16 GB memory and 672.3 GB/s bandwidth are the decisive factors for modern workloads. The OpenCL score alone, 199,267, dwarfs the W6400’s 35,027, and the Vulkan score of 53,683 is higher than the W6400’s entire average benchmark score. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s average benchmark score of 31,087 is dragged down by legacy PassMark tests, but in the two modern Geekbench tests, it is the clear winner.

For a professional user who needs CUDA acceleration, tensor core support, or high-resolution rendering, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER is the only choice from this pair. For a user with a 250 W PSU budget and a single-slot requirement, the W6400 is the only choice. There is no middle ground.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER scores 199,267, compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s 35,027, a delta of 82.4%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 672.3 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus, while the W6400 has 128.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the W6400 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 12 ray tracing cores, but the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has 66 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The W6400 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER has a 285 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The W6400 has an average score of 37,157, which is higher than the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER’s 31,087, because the W6400’s benchmarks are limited to Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The W6400 uses a 6 nm process, while the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER uses a 5 nm process, both from TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 2340 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 2610 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 672.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 8448 |

| TMUs | 48 | 264 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 66 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 264 |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 250.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 689.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.565 TFLOPS | 44.10 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 44.10 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 285 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2024-01-23 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 799 USD |

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