AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for this pairing is starkly one-sided, with only a single shared test result across both products. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute workload, the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 delivers a score of 144,393 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 34,511. That represents a massive 318.4% advantage for the NVIDIA part — more than four times the raw compute output of the AMD card in this specific API test.

This result is consistent with the broader positioning of both cards. The Quadro GV100's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 34,677, while the Radeon PRO W6400's average sits at 34,511 — a difference of just 0.5% in favor of the GV100 when looking at overall averages. However, that near-parity in average scores is misleading, because the GV100 has nine recorded benchmark entries spanning multiple DirectX versions, OpenCL, Vulkan, and compute workloads, whereas the W6400 has only a single OpenCL result in the dataset. The averages are therefore not directly comparable in scope.

Looking at the GV100's individual benchmark breakdown, its strongest showing comes in Geekbench OpenCL at 144,393, followed by Geekbench Vulkan at 137,547. In the Passmark suite, the GV100 scores 19,650 in G3D, 9,069 in GPU compute, 836 in G2D, 207 in DirectX 9, 168 in DirectX 11, 140 in DirectX 10, and 84 in DirectX 12. These figures reveal a card that excels in compute-oriented and legacy DirectX workloads but shows relatively modest performance in modern DirectX 12 rasterization tests — likely reflecting its workstation-oriented driver optimizations rather than gaming focus.

The nearest-rival data for the GV100 places it in a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon RX 9070 averages 34,780 (0.3% higher), the AMD Radeon HD 7970 averages 34,541 (0.4% lower), the W6400 averages 34,511 (0.5% lower), and the NVIDIA A2 averages 34,866 (0.5% higher). For the W6400, its nearest rivals include the HD 7970 at 34,541 (0.1% higher), the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT at 34,427 (0.2% lower), the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34,355 (0.5% lower), and the GV100 at 34,677 (0.5% higher). Both cards sit at the 78th percentile among all GPUs, which places them in the upper tier of recorded hardware but not at the absolute top.

The single head-to-head result is unambiguous: the GV100 wins the only directly comparable benchmark by an enormous margin. The W6400 has no recorded wins in any head-to-head comparison within this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two cards is substantial, reflecting their different design philosophies and release timelines. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is built on the Volta architecture using the GV100 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 21,100 million transistors into an 815 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, also fabricated at TSMC but on a much more advanced 6 nm process. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems could hardly be more different. The GV100 features 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6400 offers just 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, with 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 6.8x difference in raw bandwidth and an 8x difference in capacity. For workloads that are memory-bound — particularly large dataset processing, scientific computing, or high-resolution rendering — this disparity is often the deciding factor.

Compute resources also diverge sharply. The GV100 has 5,120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 640 tensor cores. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The GV100's FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS versus the W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS — a 4.7x gap. FP16 performance follows a similar pattern: 33.32 TFLOPS for the GV100 versus 7.130 TFLOPS for the W6400, both at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32. The GV100 also has dedicated tensor cores (640 of them), which the W6400 lacks entirely; conversely, the W6400 has ray tracing cores that are absent from the GV100.

Pixel and texture rates tell the same story. The GV100 achieves 208.3 GPixel/s and 520.6 GTexel/s, while the W6400 manages 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s. Clock speeds favor the AMD part — the W6400 runs at 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost versus the GV100's 1132 MHz base and 1627 MHz boost — but the GV100's vastly larger execution engine more than compensates.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The GV100 is a 250 W dual-slot card requiring one 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The W6400 is a 50 W single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GV100 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The W6400's dimensions are not recorded in the dataset. The GV100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4 — a narrower interface but a newer generation. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the GV100 versus 2x DisplayPort 1.4a on the W6400.

API support shows the generational difference: the GV100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W6400's DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes features like ray tracing and mesh shaders that the older 12_1 level does not encompass.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scores 144,393 versus the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 34,511 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 318.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The GV100 has an average benchmark score of 34,677 across nine tests, while the W6400 averages 34,511 from a single OpenCL result. The difference is 0.5% in favor of the GV100.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of each card?

A: The GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the W6400 support ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes, the W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The GV100 does not have dedicated ray tracing cores but instead includes 640 tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GV100 has a TDP of 250 W, requires one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 600 W PSU. The W6400 has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The W6400's Navi 24 chip achieves 50.5 million transistors per mm² on a 107 mm² die, versus the GV100's 25.9 million per mm² on an 815 mm² die. The W6400 uses a 6 nm process; the GV100 uses 12 nm.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture for most professional workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro GV100 is the overwhelmingly more capable compute device. Its 318.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 8x more memory capacity, 6.8x more memory bandwidth, and 4.7x more FP32 throughput, makes it the obvious choice for compute-heavy tasks like deep learning training, scientific simulation, or large-scale rendering. The presence of 640 tensor cores further cements its position for AI-adjacent workloads, and its four DisplayPort outputs support multi-display professional setups.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, however, has its own merits that the benchmark data partially obscures. Its 50 W TDP with no external power connectors makes it dramatically easier to integrate into compact or power-constrained systems — the GV100 requires a 600 W PSU and an 8-pin connector. The W6400's 6 nm process and higher transistor density (50.5M/mm² versus 25.9M/mm²) indicate a more modern design, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate support with 12 ray tracing cores provides features the older Volta card lacks. For workloads that leverage ray tracing or fit within the 4 GB memory envelope, the W6400 may be sufficient — but those are narrow use cases.

The release timeline matters: the GV100 launched on 2018-03-26 with a launch MSRP of 8,999 USD, while the W6400 launched on 2022-01-18. Both are now end-of-life products. The GV100's predecessor was Quadro Pascal and its successor is Quadro Turing; the W6400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega with no recorded successor.

In practical terms, the choice depends entirely on workload scale. For users processing large datasets, training models, or rendering high-resolution content, the GV100's massive memory pool and compute throughput are non-negotiable advantages. For users with modest compute needs, limited physical space, or strict power budgets, the W6400's efficiency and modern feature set — particularly ray tracing — make it a viable alternative. The 78th percentile ranking for both cards indicates they occupy similar overall tiers, but the benchmark distribution shows the GV100's superiority is concentrated precisely where professional workloads demand it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro GV100 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Architecture | Volta | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 21,100 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 815 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.9M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1132 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1627 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 4096 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 868.4 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 848 MHz / 1696 Mbps effective | 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 5120 | 768 |

| TMUs | 320 | 48 |

| ROPs | 128 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 640 | None |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 12 |

| Pixel Rate | 208.3 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 520.6 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 16.66 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2018-03-26 | 2022-01-18 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | Not recorded |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |