AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB are both end-of-life workstation graphics cards, but the data shows they occupy very different performance tiers. The single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, reveals a decisive victory for the NVIDIA card, which scored 66,998 compared to the AMD card's 35,027, a 47.7% difference. This substantial gap in raw compute performance sets the stage for a comparison that extends well beyond simple frame rates, touching on memory capacity, architecture efficiency, and professional feature sets.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB delivers a score of 66,998, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 manages 35,027. The deltaPct of -47.7% indicates that the AMD card's score is nearly half that of its rival. This is a massive performance disparity that suggests the A2000 is in a completely different performance class for general-purpose GPU compute tasks.

When placed against their respective peer groups, the two cards' positions become clearer. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37,157 and sits at the 80th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507, a -0.9% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648, a -1.3% delta). This shows the W6400 is essentially performance-parity with these much larger and more power-hungry consumer cards, despite its low power draw.

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, despite winning the head-to-head, has a lower average benchmark score of 34,154 and sits at the 79th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,133, a 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA TITAN V (34,355, a -0.6% delta). The A2000's lower average score compared to its OpenCL result is curious; it suggests that while it excels in OpenCL, its performance in other benchmark suites may be less dominant, pulling its average down.

The data implies that the A2000's victory is not just about raw compute. The Geekbench OpenCL score reflects the card's 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than double the W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS. This compute advantage is the primary driver of the benchmark result, and it is a gap that no driver optimization or software tweak can bridge.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any workload that leverages OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB is the superior choice. Its 66,998 score versus the W6400's 35,027 represents a 47.7% lead, which is a massive advantage in compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing. The A2000's 12 GB memory capacity and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also provide a significant buffer for large datasets, whereas the W6400's 4 GB and 128.0 GB/s may become a bottleneck.

However, the AMD card is not without its own merits. Its 50 W TDP is notably lower than the A2000's 70 W, and it is a single-slot card compared to the A2000's dual-slot design. For a compact workstation or a system with strict power and space constraints, the W6400's efficiency and form factor are attractive. The data shows it achieves 80th percentile performance with minimal resource consumption.

The choice comes down to workload priority. If raw compute performance and memory capacity are paramount, the RTX A2000 12 GB is the clear winner. If power efficiency and a smaller physical footprint are more critical, and the workload is less demanding, the Radeon PRO W6400 is a viable option. The 47.7% performance gap, however, is difficult to ignore for any professional user.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB uses the Ampere architecture with the GA106 chip, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The AMD chip is smaller, with a die size of 107 mm² and 5,400 million transistors, while the NVIDIA chip is significantly larger at 276 mm² and 12,000 million transistors.

The transistor density tells an interesting story. The AMD chip packs 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the NVIDIA chip has 43.5 million. This indicates that the RDNA 2.0 architecture is more dense, but the Ampere chip's larger size allows for more total resources. The AMD card has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs.

Feature sets also diverge. The NVIDIA card includes 26 RT cores and 104 tensor cores, bringing hardware ray tracing and AI acceleration to the table. The AMD card has 12 RT cores but no tensor cores. This makes the A2000 a more versatile card for workloads that leverage ray tracing or AI inference, which the W6400 cannot accelerate through dedicated hardware.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 128.0 GB/s. This is a 3x capacity and 2.25x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card, which has direct implications for texture-heavy workloads and large compute datasets.

Clock speeds are also notably different. The AMD card has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has a much lower base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the NVIDIA card's higher core count gives it a significant FP32 throughput advantage: 7.987 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS.

The memory clocks also differ, with the AMD card running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA card at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The physical design differs as well: the W6400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the A2000 is a dual-slot card, also with no power connectors, but it measures 167 mm in length and 69 mm in height. Both cards require a 250 W PSU, and both use PCIe 4.0, but the W6400 uses a x4 interface while the A2000 uses x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB has a FP32 performance of 7.987 TFLOPS, which is more than double the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 3.565 TFLOPS.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA card in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB scored 66,998, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scored 35,027. The deltaPct of -47.7% means the AMD card trails by 47.7%.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The NVIDIA card has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD card has 4 GB with 128.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 3x the capacity and 2.25x the bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

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

Q: What is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP was 449 USD.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB wins decisively in raw compute performance. The 47.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline number, and it is backed by the card's 2.24x higher FP32 throughput. The 12 GB memory capacity is a clear advantage for professionals working with large textures, complex 3D scenes, or datasets that exceed 4 GB. The inclusion of 104 tensor cores also makes the A2000 the only choice for AI and machine learning inference tasks that can leverage these cores, as the W6400 has none.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in efficiency and compactness. Its 50 W TDP is 20 W lower than the A2000's 70 W, and its single-slot design takes up less space in a chassis. The W6400's higher boost clock of 2321 MHz versus the A2000's 1200 MHz suggests it may be more responsive in lightly-threaded tasks that rely on clock speed. The AMD card also has a higher pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s versus the NVIDIA card's 57.60 GPixel/s, which could give it an edge in certain pixel-bound 2D workloads.

The overall picture is one of specialization. The A2000 is a compute powerhouse with memory and AI features, while the W6400 is a low-power, space-saving card that punches above its weight in the 80th percentile. For a user who prioritizes the data, the A2000's 47.7% performance lead is the defining factor, but for a user with strict power and space budgets, the W6400's efficiency and density make it a compelling alternative.