AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q are both end-of-life workstation-oriented cards, but they serve fundamentally different roles. The recorded data shows a clear split in capabilities that maps directly to use cases.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins the only shared benchmark in the database, the Geekbench Vulkan test. It scores 39,286 against the GRID M60-1Q's 31,220, a decisive 25.8% advantage. This makes the W6400 the better choice for any workload that runs through Vulkan, which includes modern CAD viewports, DCC real-time previews, and Linux-based compute stacks that favor Vulkan over OpenGL. The W6400 also carries DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, so it is the card to pick for newer DirectX 12 titles or any application using ray tracing, mesh shaders, or variable rate shading.

The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only recorded score is that same Vulkan result, where it trails by 25.8%. However, its role is not raw performance, it is virtualized GPU delivery. With no display outputs, the M60-1Q is built entirely for server-side rendering and VDI (virtual desktop infrastructure). If the task is hosting multiple virtual machines with GPU acceleration in a data center, the M60-1Q is the only one of these two that fits that architecture at all. The W6400, by contrast, has two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and is intended for a physical workstation with a monitor attached.

For single-user, local rendering tasks, the W6400 is the winner on every measured axis. For multi-tenant virtualized environments, the M60-1Q is the only viable option, not because it is faster, but because it is designed for that deployment model. The data cannot show a scenario where the M60-1Q outperforms the W6400 in a head-to-head application test, but the database does show it sits at the 76th percentile of all GPUs, so it is not a weak card in absolute terms, it is simply outclassed by the newer RDNA 2 part in direct compute.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by seven years of GPU design and a complete shift in process technology. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on TSMC's 6 nm node, while the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q uses the GM204 chip on TSMC's 28 nm node. That process gap is enormous in practice: 6 nm versus 28 nm means the W6400 packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The M60-1Q has a comparable transistor count, 5,200 million, but spread across a 398 mm² die, a density of just 13.1 million per square millimeter. In short, the W6400 fits roughly the same number of transistors into about a quarter of the silicon area.

The microarchitectures reflect the same generational divide. AMD's RDNA 2.0 is a modern gaming and compute architecture with 12 dedicated ray tracing cores, hardware-accelerated Vulkan 1.4 support, and DirectX 12 Ultimate features. NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 is an older design with no ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 (12_1) support only. The W6400 also lists FP16 throughput at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1), meaning it can double its FP32 rate for half-precision work, while the M60-1Q has no recorded FP16 capability at all.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The W6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The M60-1Q uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. The M60-1Q actually has higher memory bandwidth, but far less capacity. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, the W6400's 4 GB frame buffer is the practical advantage; for raw streaming bandwidth, the M60-1Q wins on paper.

The power and physical profiles are equally divergent. The W6400 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU. The M60-1Q is a dual-slot card at 267 mm long, with a 225 W TDP, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 550 W PSU. The W6400 draws its power entirely from the PCIe slot, which makes it trivial to install in almost any workstation. The M60-1Q requires a proper power supply and server chassis clearance.

Interface and output differences complete the architectural picture. The W6400 runs on PCIe 4.0 x4 and has two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The M60-1Q runs on PCIe 3.0 x16 but has no display outputs whatsoever. The x16 link gives the M60-1Q more host bandwidth in theory, but the W6400's PCIe 4.0 signaling partially compensates despite the x4 electrical width. The lack of outputs on the M60-1Q confirms its server-only design intent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark result for this pair: Geekbench Vulkan. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39,286, and the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220. That is a 25.8% lead for the W6400, which is a substantial margin in GPU terms. A 25.8% difference is roughly the gap between two adjacent GPU tiers in a product stack, not a minor clock-speed advantage.

Putting that score in context against their respective peer groups clarifies the result. The W6400's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 37,157, which places it at the 80th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37,507 (0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37,628 (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37,648 (1.3% ahead). The W6400 also beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which scores 36,530, by 1.7%. So despite being a low-power, 50 W card, the W6400 lands squarely in the performance range of much larger, power-hungry desktop GPUs from a few generations back.

The M60-1Q's average benchmark score is 31,220, at the 76th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M5000 at 31,206 (0% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER at 31,087 (0.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell at 31,532 (1% ahead). The M60-1Q also trails the NVIDIA TITAN RTX by 1.4%. In other words, the M60-1Q is competitive with mid-range to high-end cards from its own era, but the W6400's 25.8% Vulkan lead over it is consistent with the generational gap between Maxwell and RDNA 2.0.

The single benchmark does not tell us about OpenCL performance for the M60-1Q, as no such score is recorded. The W6400 does have a Geekbench OpenCL score of 35,027, which is lower than its Vulkan score of 39,286. This suggests the W6400 is particularly strong on Vulkan relative to its own OpenCL performance, likely due to RDNA 2's optimized driver path for Vulkan. For users choosing between these two, the Vulkan result is the only direct comparison available, and it is decisive in the W6400's favor.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the only directly comparable benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39,286 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220. The W6400 leads by 25.8%.

Q: Can the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q be used in a desktop workstation with a monitor?

A: No. The M60-1Q has no display outputs. It is designed for server-side virtualized GPU workloads. The W6400, by contrast, has two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M60-1Q has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The M60-1Q has higher bandwidth, but the W6400 has four times the capacity.

Q: Does the M60-1Q support ray tracing?

A: No. The M60-1Q uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, which has no ray tracing cores. The W6400 uses RDNA 2.0 and includes 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What power supply do these cards require?

A: The W6400 has a 50 W TDP and a suggested 250 W PSU, with no power connectors. The M60-1Q has a 225 W TDP and a suggested 550 W PSU, requiring one 8-pin connector.

Q: Which card has better DirectX support?

A: The W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The M60-1Q supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The W6400 is the more modern API implementation.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards, based on recorded data:

• Process node: AMD Radeon PRO W6400: 6 nm (TSMC). NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q: 28 nm (TSMC).
• Transistors: W6400: 5,400 million. M60-1Q: 5,200 million.
• Die size: W6400: 107 mm². M60-1Q: 398 mm².
• Transistor density: W6400: 50.5M / mm². M60-1Q: 13.1M / mm².
• Base clock: W6400: 2039 MHz. M60-1Q: 557 MHz.
• Boost clock: W6400: 2321 MHz. M60-1Q: 1178 MHz.
• Memory clock: W6400: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). M60-1Q: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: W6400: 4 GB GDDR6. M60-1Q: 1 GB GDDR5.
• Memory bus width: W6400: 64 bit. M60-1Q: 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: W6400: 128.0 GB/s. M60-1Q: 160.4 GB/s.
• Shading units: W6400: 768. M60-1Q: 2048.
• TMUs: W6400: 48. M60-1Q: 128.
• ROPs: W6400: 32. M60-1Q: 64.
• Ray tracing cores: W6400: 12. M60-1Q: none.
• Pixel rate: W6400: 74.27 GPixel/s. M60-1Q: 75.39 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: W6400: 111.4 GTexel/s. M60-1Q: 150.8 GTexel/s.
• FP32: W6400: 3.565 TFLOPS. M60-1Q: 4.825 TFLOPS.
• FP16: W6400: 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1). M60-1Q: not recorded.
• TDP: W6400: 50 W. M60-1Q: 225 W.
• Slot width: W6400: Single-slot. M60-1Q: Dual-slot.
• Power connectors: W6400: None. M60-1Q: 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: W6400: 250 W. M60-1Q: 550 W.
• Bus interface: W6400: PCIe 4.0 x4. M60-1Q: PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display outputs: W6400: 2x DisplayPort 1.4a. M60-1Q: No outputs.
• DirectX support: W6400: 12 Ultimate (12_2). M60-1Q: 12 (12_1).
• Length: W6400: not recorded. M60-1Q: 267 mm (10.5 inches).
• Release date: W6400: 2022-01-18. M60-1Q: 2015-08-29.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 if you need a local, single-user workstation card with modern API support, a 25.8% Vulkan lead over the M60-1Q, and far lower power requirements. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it a drop-in upgrade for almost any existing workstation. The 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer is small by modern standards, but it is four times the M60-1Q's 1 GB, and the 12 ray tracing cores plus DirectX 12 Ultimate support future-proof it for newer applications.

Pick the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q only if your use case is virtualized GPU delivery. Its lack of display outputs makes it useless as a primary workstation card, but that same design makes it suitable for server environments where GPU compute is passed through to virtual machines. The 225 W TDP and 550 W PSU requirement are acceptable in a server chassis, and its 160.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is actually higher than the W6400's, which helps in bandwidth-bound virtualized workloads. However, the data shows it is 25.8% slower in Vulkan, and it lacks ray tracing support entirely.

For any workload that involves a physical monitor, the W6400 is the clear choice. For any workload that involves a hypervisor and no monitor, the M60-1Q is the only choice. The database does not record a scenario where the M60-1Q beats the W6400 in a direct benchmark, so the decision comes down to deployment model, not raw performance.