AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 occupy opposite ends of the mobile and workstation GPU spectrum. The RTX 5080 Mobile is a high-end Blackwell 2.0 part aimed at premium laptops, while the PRO W6400 is a low-profile RDNA 2.0 workstation card. Benchmark data shows a massive performance gulf, with the RTX 5080 Mobile leading by over 330% in available compute tests, but the PRO W6400 offers a distinct low-power, single-slot profile.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 5080 Mobile scores 166,986 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 376.7% higher than the PRO W6400's 35,027. This represents a dominant lead in general-purpose compute workloads.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile offers 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its 16 GB GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 provides 128.0 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, meaning the RTX 5080 Mobile has exactly 7 times the bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs comparable in terms of performance percentiles?

A: Despite the massive benchmark gap, they are surprisingly close in percentile ranking. The RTX 5080 Mobile ranks in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the PRO W6400 ranks in the 80th percentile. This indicates the W6400 is well-optimized for its niche despite lower raw scores.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile has an 80 W TDP. The W6400 draws 30 W less, making it more suitable for compact or passively-cooled workstation builds.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile has 7,680 shading units, which is exactly 10 times more than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 768 shading units. This explains the significant FP32 throughput difference.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 launched on 2022-01-18 and is listed as End-of-life, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile released on 2025-04-01 and is Active. There are roughly three years between their announcement dates.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile uses the GB203 chip based on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 45,600 million transistors into a 378 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 120.6M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It contains only 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a density of 50.5M per mm². The RTX 5080 Mobile has over 8 times more transistors and a 3.5 times larger die.

Core configuration differences are stark. The RTX 5080 Mobile features 7,680 shading units, 240 texture mapping units (TMUs), 96 render output units (ROPs), 60 ray tracing cores, and 240 tensor cores. The PRO W6400 offers 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores. This means the RTX 5080 Mobile has 10 times the shading units, 5 times the TMUs, and 3 times the ROPs. The RTX 5080 Mobile's tensor cores enable AI acceleration features that the AMD part lacks entirely.

Memory architecture diverges completely. The RTX 5080 Mobile uses 16 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth. The PRO W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a different story: the PRO W6400 runs at a 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost, while the RTX 5080 Mobile runs lower at 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. However, the RTX 5080 Mobile's wider execution resources more than compensate for its lower clocks. The RTX 5080 Mobile also uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the PRO W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparison data is available from two Geekbench tests, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5080 Mobile scores 166,986 against the PRO W6400's 35,027, a delta of 376.7%. This massive margin reflects the combination of 10 times more shading units, 7 times more memory bandwidth, and significantly higher FP32 throughput. The RTX 5080 Mobile delivers 23.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400, which is roughly a 6.5 times advantage.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 5080 Mobile scores 169,754 versus 39,286 for the PRO W6400, a delta of 332.1%. This slightly smaller gap still shows the NVIDIA part dominating by a factor of over 4.3 times. The Vulkan results are closer in relative terms because the PRO W6400's higher boost clock (2321 MHz vs 1500 MHz) helps it extract more from its smaller core count in API-level workloads. However, the sheer architectural advantage of the RTX 5080 Mobile—with its 60 ray tracing cores and 240 tensor cores—keeps it firmly ahead.

The average benchmark scores further contextualize the rivalry. The RTX 5080 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 38,349, while the PRO W6400 averages 37,157. This narrow 3.2% difference in average scores versus the massive individual test deltas suggests that the RTX 5080 Mobile's benchmark profile is heavily weighted by its Passmark and 3DMark results, where it excels. Notably, the RTX 5080 Mobile's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Mobile (delta 0.6%) and GeForce MX570 (delta 0.1%), while the PRO W6400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (delta -1.3%) and AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (delta -0.9%).

Specification Differences

The clearest differences between the two GPUs are in their core specifications. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile has 7,680 shading units versus 768 on the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, and 240 TMUs versus 48. ROP counts are 96 versus 32. Ray tracing cores number 60 on the NVIDIA part versus 12 on the AMD part, and the RTX 5080 Mobile has 240 tensor cores while the PRO W6400 has none. FP32 compute is 23.04 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 23.04 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1).

Memory specifications differ fundamentally. The RTX 5080 Mobile uses 16 GB of GDDR7 with a 256-bit bus and 896.0 GB/s bandwidth. The PRO W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Pixel rate is 144.0 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 360.0 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s. The process node is 5 nm versus 6 nm, with transistor counts of 45,600 million versus 5,400 million. Die size is 378 mm² versus 107 mm², and transistor density is 120.6M/mm² versus 50.5M/mm².

Power and physical specifications also differ. The RTX 5080 Mobile has an 80 W TDP, while the PRO W6400 has a 50 W TDP. The form factor is IGP (integrated graphics package) for the NVIDIA part versus Single-slot for the AMD part. The RTX 5080 Mobile uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the PRO W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are portable-device dependent on the RTX 5080 Mobile versus 2x DisplayPort 1.4a on the PRO W6400. The suggested PSU for the PRO W6400 is 250 W, while no PSU requirement is listed for the RTX 5080 Mobile. Production status is Active for NVIDIA versus End-of-life for AMD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile is the vastly superior performer. It wins both head-to-head tests by margins of 376.7% in OpenCL and 332.1% in Vulkan. For any workload where raw compute, memory bandwidth, or feature support matters, the RTX 5080 Mobile is the clear choice. Its 16 GB GDDR7 memory, 896.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 23.04 TFLOPS FP32 performance put it in a completely different class than the PRO W6400's 4 GB GDDR6, 128.0 GB/s, and 3.565 TFLOPS.

However, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is not without merit. Its 50 W TDP is 30 W lower than the RTX 5080 Mobile's 80 W, making it far easier to cool in compact chassis. The single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors allow for installation in space-constrained systems. Its higher boost clock of 2321 MHz versus 1500 MHz shows efficient use of its smaller die. The 80th percentile ranking versus the RTX 5080 Mobile's 81st percentile suggests that in its intended professional workload niche, the W6400 performs admirably relative to its power envelope.

The RTX 5080 Mobile is the pick for anyone needing maximum performance in a laptop or mobile workstation. The PRO W6400 is the pick for low-power, single-slot workstation builds where 4 GB of VRAM and modest compute are sufficient. The average benchmark scores (38,349 vs 37,157) are close, but this is misleading; the RTX 5080 Mobile has far more headroom in heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 Mobile wins in every measured benchmark category, but its advantages are particularly pronounced in compute-heavy tasks. The 376.7% OpenCL lead indicates dominance in general-purpose GPU compute, machine learning inference, and rendering workloads that leverage FP32 throughput. The 332.1% Vulkan lead shows superiority in modern graphics APIs, especially with ray tracing enabled—the RTX 5080 Mobile has 60 RT cores versus 12 on the W6400. The 240 tensor cores provide AI acceleration capabilities entirely absent from the AMD part. The 16 GB VRAM and 896.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets and high-resolution textures, while the 4 GB and 128.0 GB/s on the W6400 limit it to lighter workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in efficiency and physical integration scenarios. Its 50 W TDP allows for fanless or low-noise designs, and the single-slot form factor with no power connectors simplifies installation in dense multi-GPU systems. The 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modest, enabling use in pre-existing workstations. Its 6 nm process, while older than the 5 nm node of the RTX 5080 Mobile, still delivers efficient operation at its 2321 MHz boost clock. The 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are fixed and reliable for professional display configurations, whereas the RTX 5080 Mobile's outputs depend on the host laptop design. For basic 2D workstation tasks, legacy software compatibility, or systems where power draw is the primary constraint, the PRO W6400 remains a functional choice despite its End-of-life status.