AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive NVIDIA RTX A2000 advantage across every shared benchmark test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 scores 67,695 points against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s 35,027 points, a 93.3% delta. That is nearly double the compute throughput in a general-purpose workload, indicating the A2000’s larger shader array and memory subsystem translate directly into raw execution power.

The Vulkan test paints a similar picture, albeit with a slightly narrower margin. The RTX A2000 posts 69,089 points, while the Radeon PRO W6400 manages 39,286 points, yielding a 75.9% delta. The A2000’s win here is still substantial, though the smaller gap suggests the W6400’s higher clock speeds help it close some distance in driver-optimized or API-specific workloads. Across both tests, the NVIDIA card wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head comparisons; the AMD card records zero wins.

Context from the database’s broader rankings reinforces this gap. The RTX A2000 sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46,043. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (45,972, 0.2% behind), the Intel Arc A730M (45,592, 1% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601, 1.2% ahead). The Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, occupies the 80th percentile with an average score of 37,157. Its nearest competitors are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, 0.9% ahead), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628, 1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530, 1.7% behind). This means the A2000’s average score exceeds the W6400’s by roughly 8,886 points, a 23.9% lead based on the database’s aggregate metric.

The per-test deltas are larger than the average-score gap, which is notable. The OpenCL result shows a 93.3% difference, while the aggregate average difference is closer to 24%. This suggests the W6400 performs relatively better in other benchmarks not shared between the two cards, or that the average score calculation weights multiple tests differently. Regardless, in the direct comparisons available, the A2000 is consistently and significantly ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different design philosophies. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung’s 8 nm process node. It packs 12,000 million transistors onto a 276 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 employs the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, produced on TSMC’s 6 nm node. Its transistor count is 5,400 million on a 107 mm² die, yielding a density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is physically smaller and denser, but the NVIDIA chip has more than twice the raw transistor budget.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The RTX A2000 carries 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 raster output units. It also includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The Radeon PRO W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, plus 12 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The A2000’s shading unit count is more than four times higher, which explains its massive FP32 throughput advantage: 7.987 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400. Interestingly, the W6400’s FP16 rate is 7.130 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, close to the A2000’s FP16 of 7.987 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning the AMD card is more competitive in half-precision work.

Memory configurations also tell a story of different priorities. The A2000 uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 128.0 GB/s. The A2000’s memory clock is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), while the W6400 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), so the AMD card has faster individual memory chips, but the narrower bus limits total throughput. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the W6400 achieves 74.27 GPixel/s versus 57.60 GPixel/s for the A2000, but the A2000 leads in texture rate at 124.8 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s. The W6400’s higher boost clock (2321 MHz vs 1200 MHz) explains its pixel-rate win despite fewer ROPs.

Power and physical design add another layer. The A2000 has a 70 W TDP and is dual-slot, while the W6400 is 50 W and single-slot. Both require no external power connectors and suggest a 250 W power supply. The A2000 connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, the W6400 via PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs differ as well: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the NVIDIA card versus 2x DisplayPort 1.4a on the AMD card. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded benchmarks, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins every workload category tested. In OpenCL, which often reflects general compute tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or data processing, the A2000’s 93.3% lead makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy professional applications. The 7.987 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, combined with 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, suggests the A2000 can handle large datasets and complex shader workloads without bottlenecking on memory access.

The Vulkan test, which is more indicative of modern game engines and real-time graphics, also favors the A2000 by 75.9%. The A2000’s 104 tensor cores and 26 ray tracing cores give it hardware features the W6400 lacks entirely in the tensor department, making it better suited for AI-assisted rendering or denoising tasks. The W6400’s 12 ray tracing cores provide some ray tracing capability, but the absence of tensor cores limits its utility in mixed AI and graphics pipelines.

However, the W6400 does show strengths in specific metrics that could matter in niche scenarios. Its pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s exceeds the A2000’s 57.60 GPixel/s, which could translate to faster fill-rate-bound operations like certain 2D compositing or basic frame buffer tasks. The single-slot design and 50 W TDP make it easier to fit into compact systems or dense multi-GPU configurations where space and power are constrained. The higher memory clock (16 Gbps effective) also indicates the W6400 can move individual data elements faster, though the 64-bit bus limits aggregate throughput.

For workloads that rely on FP16 precision, the W6400’s 7.130 TFLOPS is within 11% of the A2000’s 7.987 TFLOPS, so half-precision compute tasks may see less dramatic differences than FP32 tasks. But the overall benchmark data does not include any FP16-specific tests, so this remains a theoretical advantage based on specification comparison rather than measured performance.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior performer in every measured category. Its average benchmark score of 46,043 places it at the 85th percentile, while the Radeon PRO W6400’s 37,157 sits at the 80th percentile. The A2000 wins both head-to-head tests by margins ranging from 75.9% to 93.3%, making it the recommended choice for any workload where raw compute or graphics throughput is the primary concern.

Users who prioritize multi-display setups should note the A2000’s 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs versus the W6400’s 2x DisplayPort. The A2000 also offers 6 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, which provides more headroom for large textures or datasets. The A2000’s dual-slot form factor and higher 70 W TDP are trade-offs, but they enable the larger die and memory bus that drive its performance lead.

The Radeon PRO W6400 is the better fit for scenarios where physical constraints dominate. Its single-slot design and 50 W TDP allow for denser installations, and its higher pixel rate could benefit specific fill-rate-limited tasks. The 6 nm process node and higher transistor density (50.5M/mm²) indicate modern manufacturing efficiency, but those advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. For a user who absolutely needs a single-slot card with low power draw, the W6400 has a place, but the data does not support choosing it for performance reasons.

The RTX A2000 launched with a 449 USD MSRP, a fact worth noting for historical context, though the database does not provide pricing for the W6400. Given the measured performance gap, the A2000’s price premium appears justified by its benchmark dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 has an average score of 46,043, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average score of 37,157.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A2000 leads by 93.3%, scoring 67,695 versus 35,027 for the W6400.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark tests?

A: No. Across the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RTX A2000 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The RTX A2000 provides 288.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus, while the Radeon PRO W6400 provides 128.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RTX A2000 has 3,328 shading units, compared to 768 on the Radeon PRO W6400.

Q: Are both cards compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ according to the database.

| Field | NVIDIA RTX A2000 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Chip | GA106 | Navi 24 |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 5,400 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 562 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1200 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3328 | 768 |

| TMUs | 104 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 26 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | 104 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 57.60 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 124.8 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.987 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 70 W | 50 W |

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

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

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

| Length | 167 mm (6.6 inches) | null |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | null |

| Release Date | 2021-08-09 | 2022-01-18 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | null |

| Launch MSRP | 449 USD | null |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 85 | 80 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 46043 | 37157 |