AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA Quadro M6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M6000, winning both recorded tests. The largest margin of victory appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro M6000 scores 46,913 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s 39,286. That is a 19.4% advantage for the NVIDIA card. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M6000 again leads, scoring 39,688 versus 35,027, a smaller but still substantial 13.3% gap.

Looking beyond the head-to-head numbers, the average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Quadro M6000 has an average score of 43,301 across all recorded tests, while the Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157. This places the Quadro M6000 in the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the Radeon PRO W6400 sits in the 80th percentile. The difference in percentile ranking is modest, but the absolute score gap of about 6,144 points is meaningful for compute workloads.

The nearest rivals for each card provide additional context. The Quadro M6000’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, which scores 43,268, a mere 0.1% behind. The Quadro M6000 24 GB variant is essentially tied at 43,262, also 0.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER trails by 0.2% with 43,223, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile actually leads the Quadro M6000 by 0.8% with 43,667. So the Quadro M6000 sits in a tight cluster of high-end cards, all within roughly 1% of each other.

For the Radeon PRO W6400, its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, which scores 37,507, 0.9% higher. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 scores 37,628, 1.3% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 also scores 37,648, 1.3% higher. The only rival that the Radeon PRO W6400 beats is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X, which scores 36,530, meaning the W6400 is 1.7% ahead. This shows that the Radeon PRO W6400, while lower in absolute performance, is still competitive with several older or lower-tier cards.

Breaking down the wins, the Quadro M6000 secures 2 wins in the head-to-head tests, while the Radeon PRO W6400 secures 0. The OpenCL test is often more representative of general compute tasks, while Vulkan tends to favor gaming or graphics-heavy workloads. The Quadro M6000’s 19.4% lead in Vulkan is particularly notable, suggesting a stronger graphics pipeline for that API.

The data does not indicate any test where the Radeon PRO W6400 outperforms the Quadro M6000. This is a straightforward dominance in the recorded benchmarks, with the NVIDIA card leading by double digits in both tests. The margins are not trivial: a 13.3% gap in OpenCL and a 19.4% gap in Vulkan mean that for any workload using these APIs, the Quadro M6000 should deliver noticeably higher throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 has an average score of 43,301, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 averages 37,157. The Quadro M6000 is ahead by roughly 6,144 points.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 scores 46,913 versus 39,286 for the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, a difference of 19.4%.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W6400 compare to its closest rival?

A: The closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, which scores 37,507, 0.9% higher than the W6400’s 37,157. The W6400 does beat the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X by 1.7%.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W6400 win any recorded benchmark?

A: No, the recorded data shows the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 winning both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. The Radeon PRO W6400 has 0 wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is in the 84th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is in the 80th percentile.

Q: Are these cards closely matched in overall performance?

A: No, the average scores differ by about 14.2% (43,301 versus 37,157). The Quadro M6000 is clearly ahead in the aggregate, and its percentile rank is 4 points higher.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 uses the GM200 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0. The process node differs significantly: the Quadro M6000 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses a much smaller 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This explains the transistor density difference: the Quadro M6000 packs 8,000 million transistors into a 601 mm² die, giving a density of 13.3M per mm². The Radeon PRO W6400 has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, yielding a density of 50.5M per mm². The RDNA 2.0 card is far more transistor-dense, but the Maxwell card is physically larger.

Memory configurations are radically different. The Quadro M6000 comes with 12 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 317.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W6400 offers only 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M6000 has more than twice the memory capacity and nearly 2.5 times the bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the Quadro M6000 runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the Radeon PRO W6400 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The faster effective speed of GDDR6 does not compensate for the narrower bus.

Compute resources are also uneven. The Quadro M6000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The Radeon PRO W6400 has only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. However, the Radeon PRO W6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro M6000 lacks entirely. The pixel rate is 106.9 GPixel/s for the Quadro M6000 versus 74.27 GPixel/s for the Radeon PRO W6400. Texture rate is 213.9 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 6.844 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the AMD card. The Radeon PRO W6400 does have FP16 support at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Quadro M6000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Quadro M6000 has a base clock of 988 MHz and a boost clock of 1114 MHz. The Radeon PRO W6400 runs much higher, with a base of 2039 MHz and a boost of 2321 MHz. Despite the higher clocks, the AMD card has fewer cores, which explains its lower overall throughput. The power envelope is starkly different: the Quadro M6000 has a TDP of 250 W, while the Radeon PRO W6400 draws only 50 W. The Quadro M6000 requires a dual-slot design and a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 600 W. The Radeon PRO W6400 is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of only 250 W.

Bus interfaces also differ. The Quadro M6000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon PRO W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The newer PCIe 4.0 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x4 width limits total throughput. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro M6000, versus 2x DisplayPort 1.4a for the Radeon PRO W6400. API support is similar for DirectX and OpenGL, but the Radeon PRO W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M6000 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive choice for compute-heavy workloads. The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins both recorded benchmarks with double-digit margins. Its average score of 43,301 places it in the 84th percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its performance, indicating it sits among high-end cards. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, with an average of 37,157, is in the 80th percentile and competes with older cards like the GTX TITAN X. For anyone prioritizing raw benchmark performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M6000 is the clear winner.

However, the Radeon PRO W6400 has its own strengths that the benchmark scores do not capture. It has a much lower power draw (50 W versus 250 W), a smaller physical footprint (single-slot versus dual-slot), and no external power connector requirement. It also supports ray tracing hardware, which the Quadro M6000 lacks. The Radeon PRO W6400 is built on a modern 6 nm process, whereas the Quadro M6000 is on 28 nm. These factors make the Radeon PRO W6400 more suitable for environments where power efficiency, space, and thermal output are critical constraints.

The verdict depends on the use case. If the priority is maximum compute throughput in the recorded benchmarks, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 is the choice. If the priority is power efficiency, compactness, and modern features like ray tracing, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is more appropriate. The data shows the Quadro M6000 leading in performance, but the Radeon PRO W6400 leading in efficiency and feature set.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: GM200 (NVIDIA) versus Navi 24 (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 versus RDNA 2.0
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 8,000 million versus 5,400 million
• Die Size: 601 mm² versus 107 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.3M / mm² versus 50.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 988 MHz versus 2039 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1114 MHz versus 2321 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 12 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 384 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 317.4 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 3072 versus 768
• TMUs: 192 versus 48
• ROPs: 96 versus 32
• RT Cores: None versus 12
• Pixel Rate: 106.9 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 213.9 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 6.844 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS
• FP16: None versus 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 250 W versus 50 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x4
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Release Date: 2015-03-20 versus 2022-01-18
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler versus Radeon Pro Vega
• Successor: Quadro Pascal versus none

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M6000 wins in all recorded benchmark tests. It has a 13.3% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL and a 19.4% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average score is 6,144 points higher, and its percentile ranking is 4 points higher. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the data indicates the Quadro M6000 will deliver faster results. Its higher memory bandwidth (317.4 GB/s) and larger memory pool (12 GB) make it suitable for large datasets, though this is not directly benchmarked.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in areas not measured by the recorded benchmarks. It has a significantly lower TDP (50 W versus 250 W), which makes it more suitable for power-constrained environments. It is single-slot, requires no power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 600 W. It also features 12 ray tracing cores, which the Quadro M6000 lacks entirely. For applications that use DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the Radeon PRO W6400 has the edge in API support. Its 6 nm process node means it is built on a more modern manufacturing technology.

In terms of pure performance per watt, the Radeon PRO W6400 is more efficient, but the benchmark scores do not reflect efficiency. The Quadro M6000’s 6.844 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is nearly double the Radeon PRO W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS. The Quadro M6000 also has superior pixel and texture rates. If the task is heavy 3D rendering or scientific compute, the Quadro M6000 is the better choice. If the task is light compute in a compact or low-power workstation, the Radeon PRO W6400 is more practical. The recorded data shows no benchmark where the Radeon PRO W6400 wins, but its feature set suggests it wins in scenarios prioritizing efficiency and modern API support over raw throughput.