AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in direct comparison: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile takes both recorded benchmark tests over the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA part scores 48703 against 35027 for the AMD card, a delta of 39%. This is a substantial margin, placing the RTX A1000 Mobile firmly ahead in the compute-oriented OpenCL workload.

The Vulkan results follow the same trend, though with a narrower gap. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile scores 46782, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39286, giving the NVIDIA part a 19.1% advantage. This indicates that while the AMD card is more competitive in the graphics-oriented Vulkan API, it still trails by a significant margin.

Looking at the broader database context, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile holds an average benchmark score of 47743, which places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, which averages 48477 (a 1.5% difference in favor of that rival), the AMD Radeon RX 6550M at 46702 (2.2% ahead of the RTX A1000 Mobile), the Intel Arc A530M at 46614 (2.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46601 (2.5% ahead). This shows the RTX A1000 Mobile sits just below a desktop flagship-class card like the RX 6800 XT, while comfortably outpacing several mid-range mobile options.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 37157, placing it in the 80th percentile. Its nearest rivals reveal a tight cluster: the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 averages 37507 (0.9% ahead of the W6400), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 averages 37628 (1.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 averages 37648 (1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X averages 36530 (1.7% behind the W6400). This places the W6400 in a performance tier that is close to several older or differently-purposed cards, but the 47743 average of the RTX A1000 Mobile is roughly 28.5% higher than the W6400's 37157 average.

The head-to-head delta of 39% in OpenCL and 19.1% in Vulkan shows that the NVIDIA part's advantage is consistent across different API workloads, though the gap is more pronounced in OpenCL. This suggests that the RTX A1000 Mobile's architecture is particularly well-suited to the compute-heavy tasks that OpenCL typically represents, while the Vulkan test narrows the difference, possibly due to driver optimizations or the specific workload characteristics of that API.

For the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, the best showing in the direct comparison is its Vulkan score, where it reaches 39286, which is actually higher than its own OpenCL score of 35027. This is an interesting inversion compared to the NVIDIA part, where the OpenCL score (48703) is higher than the Vulkan score (46782). The data suggests the AMD card performs relatively better in graphics-oriented tasks than in pure compute, while the NVIDIA card is strong in both but excels in compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile wins decisively with a score of 48703 versus the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 35027, a 39% advantage.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 competitive in any benchmark?

A: The AMD card is closer in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 39286 against the NVIDIA part's 46782, a 19.1% gap. Its Vulkan score is also higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating relative strength in that API.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A1000 Mobile's average score of 47743 is only 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (48477) and 2.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6550M (46702). It sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the performance tier of the AMD Radeon PRO W6400?

A: The W6400 averages 37157, placing it in the 80th percentile. Its nearest rivals are within a narrow band: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 is 1.3% ahead, the NVIDIA Tesla P4 is 1.3% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X is 1.7% behind.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile, with an average of 47743, is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 37157. This works out to roughly a 28.5% difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile and the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile uses the GA107 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip, based on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is notable: the AMD part uses a smaller 6 nm node versus NVIDIA's 8 nm, which contributes to different transistor densities.

The NVIDIA chip contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The AMD chip has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a higher transistor density of 50.5M per mm². This means the AMD chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, despite having fewer total transistors.

In terms of compute resources, the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). It also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores. Notably, the AMD card has no tensor cores listed, while the NVIDIA part has a full set of 64. The shading unit count difference is substantial: 2048 versus 768, which is a 2.67x advantage for NVIDIA.

The memory architectures differ as well. Both use 4 GB of GDDR6, but the NVIDIA part uses a 128-bit bus width, while the AMD part uses a 64-bit bus. This leads to a bandwidth difference: the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile has 176.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 128.0 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: the NVIDIA part runs at 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective), while the AMD part runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The higher clock on the AMD part does not compensate for the narrower bus.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a higher base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, compared to the NVIDIA part's 630 MHz base and 1140 MHz boost. Despite this clock advantage, the NVIDIA part achieves higher FP32 throughput at 4.669 TFLOPS versus the AMD's 3.565 TFLOPS, due to its much higher shading unit count. In FP16, the AMD part actually outputs more, at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA part produces 4.669 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: NVIDIA uses GA107, AMD uses Navi 24
• Architecture: Ampere versus RDNA 2.0
• Process Node: 8 nm (Samsung) versus 6 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 8,700 million versus 5,400 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² versus 107 mm²
• Transistor Density: 43.5M / mm² versus 50.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 630 MHz versus 2039 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1140 MHz versus 2321 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 176.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 2048 versus 768
• TMUs: 64 versus 48
• ROPs: 32 versus 32 (same)
• RT Cores: 16 versus 12
• Tensor Cores: 64 versus null (none)
• Pixel Rate: 36.48 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 72.96 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 4.669 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS
• FP16: 4.669 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 60 W versus 50 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: null versus 250 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x4
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Release Date: 2022-03-29 versus 2022-01-18
• Predecessor: Quadro Turing-M versus Radeon Pro Vega
• Successor: Ada-MW versus null

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile wins in all recorded benchmark comparisons, making it the clear choice for raw performance. Its strengths are most pronounced in OpenCL workloads, where it leads by 39%. This suggests it is better suited for compute-heavy tasks such as scientific simulation, machine learning inference (given its tensor cores), or any workload that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing. Its higher FP32 throughput of 4.669 TFLOPS and greater shading unit count make it the superior choice for parallel compute tasks that can utilize its 2048 cores.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 does not win any benchmark in the direct comparison, but its specification sheet shows areas where it has advantages that could matter in specific use cases. Its higher pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s, both significantly above the NVIDIA part, indicate that for pure rasterization throughput, the AMD card may handle certain graphics workloads more efficiently per watt. Its FP16 throughput of 7.130 TFLOPS is also higher than the NVIDIA part's 4.669 TFLOPS, which could be relevant for workloads that can take advantage of the 2:1 FP16 ratio.

The AMD card's lower TDP of 50 W, compared to NVIDIA's 60 W, means it draws less power. Its single-slot design and dedicated DisplayPort 1.4a outputs make it a more traditional desktop workstation card, while the NVIDIA part is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for mobile devices with portable-device-dependent outputs. The AMD card also has a higher boost clock of 2321 MHz, which could give it an edge in latency-sensitive tasks that respond to clock speed rather than raw core count.

For users prioritizing compute performance, the data clearly points to the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile as the winner in both OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. Its tensor cores provide additional capability for AI-related tasks, a feature the AMD card lacks entirely. For users who need a low-power, single-slot desktop solution with dedicated display outputs and high clock speeds, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has merit, particularly in graphics-focused workflows where its higher pixel and texture rates may be beneficial. However, the benchmark data shows that in the two recorded tests, the NVIDIA part holds a decisive advantage, making it the stronger overall performer in this comparison.