AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and NVIDIA RTX A1000 are both single-slot, 50W workstation cards, but they target very different performance tiers. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in raw compute, with the RTX A1000 taking both head-to-head tests, yet the W6400 holds its own as a remarkably efficient option with a unique architectural approach. This analysis breaks down where each card excels, the fundamental differences under the hood, and which workload profile suits each GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 wins both recorded tests by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A1000 scores 52,078 against the Radeon PRO W6400's 35,027, a delta of -32.7% for the AMD card. This is a massive gap, indicating the NVIDIA card delivers roughly 48.7% more raw compute throughput in this API. The Vulkan test narrows the gap slightly but still favors NVIDIA decisively: 49,574 for the RTX A1000 versus 39,286 for the W6400, a -20.8% difference. Across both tests, the RTX A1000 wins 2 out of 2, leaving the W6400 with zero head-to-head victories.

Context from the nearest rivals puts these scores into perspective. The W6400's average benchmark score is 37,157, which places it just 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507) and 1.3% behind both the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648). Interestingly, it beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530) by 1.7%. The RTX A1000's average score sits at 34,207, which is nearly identical to its closest rivals: it is 0.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB (34,154) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133), 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 480 (33,997), and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355). This reveals a paradox: despite losing both head-to-head tests against the A1000, the W6400 actually has a higher average benchmark score (37,157 vs 34,207). This is because the W6400's two Geekbench results are both strong, while the RTX A1000's average is dragged down by its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of just 969, a test the W6400 was not subjected to.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is built on the Navi 24 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a compact 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 uses the GA107 chip with Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm node. It has significantly more transistors — 8,700 million — spread across a much larger 200 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 43.5 million per mm².

The compute configuration tells a clear story of NVIDIA's brute-force approach. The RTX A1000 features 2,304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, making it a far more feature-rich processor. The W6400, by contrast, has just 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with only 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. This 3:1 ratio in shading units explains the RTX A1000's dominant FP32 performance: 6.737 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the AMD card. The W6400 does offer FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS (at a 2:1 ratio), while the RTX A1000 delivers 6.737 TFLOPS FP16 (at a 1:1 ratio), meaning the AMD card actually exceeds NVIDIA in half-precision compute if the workload can use it.

Clock speeds and pixel/texture rates further differentiate them. The W6400 runs at a base clock of 2039 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz, while the RTX A1000 has a much lower base of 727 MHz but boosts to 1462 MHz. Despite lower clocks, the A1000's higher pixel rate is actually lower at 46.78 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s for the W6400 — a win for AMD driven by its higher clock speed. Texture rate is closer: 111.4 GTexel/s for the W6400 versus 105.3 GTexel/s for the RTX A1000, another narrow AMD victory.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a higher average benchmark score of 37,157 compared to the NVIDIA RTX A1000's 34,207. However, this is partially due to the A1000's inclusion of a low 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score (969) that pulls its average down.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RTX A1000 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A1000 doubles both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: How do they compare in ray tracing capabilities?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 has 18 ray tracing cores, whereas the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has only 12. This indicates the A1000 is better positioned for hardware-accelerated ray tracing workloads.

Q: Are there any tensor core differences?

A: Yes, the RTX A1000 includes 72 tensor cores, which are essential for AI and machine learning inference tasks. The W6400 has no tensor cores at all, so it lacks dedicated hardware for such workloads.

Q: What are the display output capabilities?

A: The W6400 provides 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RTX A1000 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The NVIDIA card supports more simultaneous displays and uses a different physical connector.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is end-of-life, having been released on 2022-01-18. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is active in production, with a release date of 2024-04-15, and has a successor in the Workstation Ada generation.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node and foundry: 6 nm TSMC for AMD versus 8 nm Samsung for NVIDIA. Transistor count and die size: 5,400 million on 107 mm² for the W6400 versus 8,700 million on 200 mm² for the A1000. Clock speeds: base 2039 MHz and boost 2321 MHz for the W6400, versus 727 MHz base and 1462 MHz boost for the A1000. Memory: 4 GB GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus for AMD, versus 8 GB GDDR6 at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus for NVIDIA. Bandwidth: 128.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

Compute units scale similarly: shading units are 768 vs 2304, TMUs are 48 vs 72, and ROPs are 32 vs 32. RT cores are 12 vs 18, and tensor cores are 0 vs 72. Pixel rate favors AMD at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 46.78 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 111.4 GTexel/s versus 105.3 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA at 6.737 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS, while FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS for AMD versus 6.737 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. Physical dimensions: the RTX A1000 is 163 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the W6400's dimensions are not listed. PCIe interface: 4.0 x4 for AMD versus 4.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Display outputs: 2x DisplayPort vs 4x mini-DisplayPort. Both share the same TDP (50 W), slot width (single-slot), power connector requirement (none), suggested PSU (250 W), and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the clear winner for raw compute-heavy tasks. Its 6.737 TFLOPS FP32 performance, combined with 72 tensor cores and 18 RT cores, makes it the superior choice for AI inference, machine learning, and ray-traced rendering. The 8 GB memory capacity and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it a significant advantage in data-heavy workloads like large 3D scenes or complex simulations. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor professional setups, and it is an active product, meaning it remains available for new system builds.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in specific efficiency and throughput metrics. Its higher pixel rate (74.27 GPixel/s) and texture rate (111.4 GTexel/s) indicate it can handle fill-rate-bound tasks like 2D compositing or certain rasterization workloads faster than the A1000. Its FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS exceeds the A1000's 6.737 TFLOPS, so in mixed-precision workloads that can utilize FP16, the W6400 has an edge. It also has a higher average benchmark score overall, which suggests it offers better consistency in the Geekbench tests it participates in. Its smaller die and lower transistor count make it a more power-efficient design per mm², though both cards consume 50 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward recommendation based on workload. If your priority is maximum compute performance, memory capacity, or any form of AI or ray-traced work, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 is the definitive choice. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively, offers double the VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB), and includes tensor cores that the AMD card completely lacks. Its active production status also ensures long-term availability and driver support.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is better suited for specific, narrower use cases. Its higher pixel and texture rates make it competitive for traditional 2D rendering tasks, and its superior FP16 throughput could benefit certain scientific or compute workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The higher average benchmark score (37,157 vs 34,207) suggests that in the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, it performs more consistently relative to its rivals. However, this advantage is largely offset by the A1000's inclusion of a 3DMark result that drags its average down.

For most buyers, the RTX A1000 is the more versatile and future-proof card. The W6400, being end-of-life and with only half the memory, is a niche product for those who specifically need its fill-rate strengths or its compact 107 mm² die in extremely constrained environments. Benchmark results indicate that if you need raw computational muscle, the RTX A1000 is worth the performance delta; if you need specific rasterization throughput and half-precision compute, the W6400's wins in those areas should not be overlooked.