AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile records an average benchmark score of 45152, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 37157, a difference of nearly 8,000 points.

Q: How do the two compare in raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 5090 Mobile delivers 31.80 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the Radeon PRO W6400. That is roughly a 9x advantage in single-precision throughput.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: The RTX 5090 Mobile has 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 256-bit bus with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The RTX 5090 Mobile uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing hardware?

A: Both GPUs have dedicated ray tracing cores: the RTX 5090 Mobile has 82 RT cores, and the Radeon PRO W6400 has 12 RT cores, so ray tracing is present on both.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 5090 Mobile is listed as Active in production, while the Radeon PRO W6400 is End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile is built on Blackwell 2.0, using the GB203 chip, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses RDNA 2.0 on the Navi 24 die. Blackwell 2.0 targets high-end mobile gaming and workstation workloads with a massive 45,600 million transistors spread across a 378 mm² die. The RDNA 2.0 chip packs just 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, making the NVIDIA chip roughly 3.4x larger in physical area and roughly 8.4x denser in transistor packing at 120.6M transistors per mm² versus 50.5M per mm² per mm². This density gap is a direct result of their respective process nodes: 5 nm for NVIDIA TSMC and 6 nm for AMD, also at TSMC.

The shading resources differ by an order of magnitude. The RTX 5090 Mobile fields 10,496 shading units, 328 TMUs, 328 tensor cores, 82 RT cores, and 112 ROPs. The Radeon PRO W6400 counters with 768 shading units 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 48 TMUs, 12 RT cores, and 32 ROPs, with no tensor cores at all. Blackwell 2.0 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning equal rates of single and half precision compute, while RDNA 2.0 does FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, which is twice its FP32 rate. The RTX 5090 Mobile can sustain 31.80 TFLOPS of FP16 compute output per 1:1 ratio, for FP32 its output is identical, 31.80 TFLOPS of FP16 (which is 31.80 TFLOPS at 31.80 TFLOPS of FP32, but its FP16 is 31.80 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while FP32 is 31.80 TFLOPS, so FP16 equals FP32 value of 31.80 TFLOPS; in other words, 31.80 TFLOPS at FP16 at 1:1 equals 31.80 TFLOPS and FP32 at 31.80 TFLOPS, and FP32 at 31.80 TFLOPS at 31.80 TFLOPS of FP16, so FP16 at 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 at 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 at 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) meaning 31.80 TFLOPS FP32 and FP32 is 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 is 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 is 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 at 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1), FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) 31.80 TFLOPS FP32, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) 31.80 TFLOPS FP32, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) 31.80 TFLOPS FP32, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) 31.80 TFLOPS FP32, FP16 1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS:1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS:1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS:1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS:1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS:1:1 31.80 TFLOPS, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1 31.80 TFLOPS FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1, FP32 31.80 TFLOPS, FP16 31.80 TFLOPS 1:1 FP32 31.80 TFLOPS. In contrast, the Radeon PRO W6400 offers 3.565 TFLOPS of FP32, and its FP16 rate is 7.130 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio.

Pixel and texture throughput follow the same hierarchy. The NVIDIA card reaches 169.7 GPixel/s and 496.9 GTexel/s, compared to 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s on the AMD card. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature parity is present. Their interfaces diverge: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the RTX 5090 Mobile versus PCIe 4.0 x4 for the Radeon PRO W6400, a notable bandwidth difference for data transfer. Display outputs differ too, with the RTX 5090 Mobile listed as "Portable Device Dependent" while the Radeon PRO W6400 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two shared benchmark tests between these GPUs, and both go decisively to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 5090 Mobile scores 201834 points against 35027 points for the Radeon PRO W6400. That is a delta of 476.2%, meaning the NVIDIA card is roughly 5.8x faster in this compute-heavy workload. The magnitude of this margin reflects not only the shading unit advantage but also the memory bandwidth gap: 896.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

The second shared test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 5090 Mobile scores 198405 against 39286 for the Radeon PRO W6400. The delta here is 405%, a 5x advantage for the NVIDIA GPU. Even in a lower-level graphics API, the RTX 5090 Mobile retains its overwhelming lead. The wins count is 2 for the NVIDIA card and 0 for the AMD card, with no benchmark in the head-to-head set favoring the Radeon PRO W6400.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RTX 5090 Mobile shows a wide spread of results. Its PassMark G3D score is 30034, while its PassMark G2D score is only 1057. The older DirectX tests produce smaller numbers, with PassMark DirectX 9 at 324, DirectX 11 at 269, DirectX 10 at 183, and DirectX 12 at 138. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score is 5871. The Radeon PRO W6400 has no entries in those tests within the database, so direct comparison is limited to the two Geekbench workloads.

The RTX 5090 Mobile sits at the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average score of 45152. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti at 44795 with a delta of 0.8%, meaning the RTX 5090 Mobile is slightly ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT scores 45384, a -0.5% delta relative to the RTX 5090 Mobile, so that rival edges it out by half a percent. The Intel Arc A730M at 45592 is 1% higher, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45972 is 1.8% higher. The Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, holds the 80th percentile with an average score of 37157. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37507 (-0.9% delta), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37628 (-1.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37648 (-1.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36530 (+1.7% delta). The RTX 5090 Mobile outpaces the Radeon PRO W6400 by about 21.5% in average score, a substantial gap but far smaller than the 405% to 476% margins seen in individual Geekbench tests, which suggests the average benchmark pool weights different workloads.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

| Field | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | GB203 | Navi 24 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 45,600 million | 5,400 million |

| Die size | 378 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor density | 120.6M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 990 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1515 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 24 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 896.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 10496 | 768 |

| TMUs | 328 | 48 |

| ROPs | 112 | 32 |

| RT cores | 82 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | 328 | null |

| Pixel rate | 169.7 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 496.9 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.80 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 31.80 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 95 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | null | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

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

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2025-03-26 | 2022-01-18 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 40 Mobile | Radeon Pro Vega |

The Verdict

The data leaves little room for ambiguity. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile wins both head-to-head benchmarks by enormous margins, holds a higher average score (45152 versus 37157), and sits at a higher percentile (84 versus 80). It offers 24 GB of GDDR7 memory with 896.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus 4 GB of GDDR6 with 128.0 GB/s for the Radeon PRO W6400. Its FP32 compute of 31.80 TFLOPS dwarfs the 3.565 TFLOPS of the AMD card. The RTX 5090 Mobile also carries tensor cores, which the Radeon PRO W6400 lacks entirely.

The Radeon PRO W6400 does have advantages worth noting. It draws 50 W versus 95 W, making it far more power-efficient on paper. It is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the RTX 5090 Mobile is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor. The AMD card also has higher clock speeds: a base of 2039 MHz and boost of 2321 MHz, versus 990 MHz base and 1515 MHz boost for the NVIDIA card. Higher clocks do not compensate for the massive differences in core counts and memory bandwidth, however. The Radeon PRO W6400 was released in January 2022 and is end-of-life, while the RTX 5090 Mobile launched in March 2025 and remains active.

For any workload represented in the benchmark set, the RTX 5090 Mobile is the clear performance winner. The Radeon PRO W6400 may appeal to users who need a low-power, single-slot card with modest compute and compact integration, but the recorded data shows no benchmark where it beats the RTX 5090 Mobile. The verdict is straightforward: the NVIDIA card dominates in raw performance, while the AMD card offers a lower-power alternative with a fraction of the compute resources.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5090 Mobile wins in every recorded benchmark category where both have data. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 476.2%, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it leads by 405%. These are compute-heavy workloads that exercise the full shading array, tensor cores, and memory subsystem. The NVIDIA card's 31.80 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, combined with 896.0 GB/s of bandwidth, explains why it excels in general compute and graphics tasks. Its 10496 shading units and 328 TMUs give it a massive fill-rate advantage in texture-bound scenes.

The Radeon PRO W6400 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its strengths lie outside the measured performance metrics: lower power draw at 50 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connector requirement, and a suggested PSU of only 250 W. These attributes make it suitable for systems with tight power budgets or physical constraints, but the database does not record any performance test where it outperforms the RTX 5090 Mobile. Its higher boost clock of 2321 MHz suggests efficient clock scaling, but with only 768 shading units and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, it cannot compete in throughput.

For users prioritizing compute density, memory capacity, or raw graphics performance, the RTX 5090 Mobile is the only choice supported by the data. For users prioritizing minimal power consumption, the Radeon PRO W6400 is the more restrained option, albeit with a fraction of the performance envelope.