AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 are both end-of-life 4 GB professional mobile GPUs, but they approach the workload from opposite architectural directions. Benchmark data from Geekbench shows a near-total split: the NVIDIA card takes the OpenCL test by a wide margin, while the AMD card counters with a smaller but decisive Vulkan win. The result is a 1-1 head-to-head tie, with the average benchmark score favoring the NVIDIA part by 6.5% (39568 vs 37157).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The clearest separation in the data appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile scores 41263, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35027. That is a 17.8% advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is the largest delta between any two comparable scores in this comparison. This OpenCL margin is substantial enough to suggest that workloads optimized for OpenCL compute will see a meaningful performance gap, not just a marginal one. The NVIDIA GPU’s raw FP32 throughput of 6.296 TFLOPS versus the AMD part’s 3.565 TFLOPS aligns with this result, as does the NVIDIA card’s 2048 shading units versus 768 for the AMD.

The Vulkan test flips the outcome, though with a smaller margin. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39286, against the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s 37873. That is a 3.6% win for the AMD card. While the percentage is far smaller than NVIDIA’s OpenCL lead, it is still a consistent result in the data. The AMD GPU’s higher boost clock of 2321 MHz (versus 1537 MHz for NVIDIA) and its 74.27 GPixel/s pixel rate (versus 49.18 GPixel/s for NVIDIA) help explain why Vulkan rendering favors the AMD side. The AMD part also shows a FP16 rate of 7.130 TFLOPS, which is double its FP32 rate, indicating a 2:1 ratio that can accelerate certain shader and compute paths.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. NVIDIA’s average is 39568, placing it at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs. AMD’s average is 37157, at the 80th percentile. The NVIDIA card’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 575, with an average score of 39555 and a delta of 0%. The AMD card’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla P4, with an average score of 37628 and a delta of -1.3%. These comparisons show that both parts sit in a similar performance band overall, but the NVIDIA card edges ahead in aggregate compute, while the AMD card wins in the specific Vulkan API test.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile scores 41263 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.8% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s score of 35027.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39286 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 3.6% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile’s score of 37873.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 39568, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average of 37157. That puts the NVIDIA card 6.5% ahead overall.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

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

Q: What is the memory configuration on each card?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus. The NVIDIA card has a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s, while the AMD card has a higher bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s.

Q: How do the transistor densities differ?

A: The NVIDIA chip has a transistor density of 43.5M per mm², while the AMD chip has a higher density of 50.5M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile uses the GA107S 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 significant: 8 nm versus 6 nm. The AMD chip achieves a higher transistor density of 50.5M per mm², versus 43.5M per mm² for NVIDIA, despite having fewer total transistors—5,400 million versus 8,700 million. The die sizes also differ, with the NVIDIA chip at 200 mm² and the AMD chip at 107 mm².

The compute unit counts diverge sharply. The NVIDIA GPU has 2048 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores. The AMD GPU has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores at all. The NVIDIA card’s FP32 throughput is 6.296 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate is identical at 6.296 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The AMD card’s FP32 rate is 3.565 TFLOPS, while its FP16 rate is 7.130 TFLOPS, indicating a 2:1 ratio. This means the AMD part can process FP16 workloads at twice its FP32 rate, while the NVIDIA part does not gain any advantage from FP16.

Clock speeds also differ. The NVIDIA card has a base clock of 832 MHz and a boost clock of 1537 MHz. The AMD card has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz. The AMD card’s higher clocks contribute to its superior pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s, compared to NVIDIA’s 49.18 GPixel/s and 98.37 GTexel/s. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for AMD, which explains the bandwidth difference of 96.00 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on API and workload type. For OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile is the stronger choice, with a 17.8% lead over the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. This is a substantial margin, and it aligns with the NVIDIA card’s higher FP32 throughput, more shading units, and larger transistor count. The NVIDIA card also holds a 6.5% advantage in average benchmark score, which indicates better overall compute performance across the two tests.

For Vulkan rendering or applications that leverage the Vulkan API, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is the better pick, with a 3.6% win over the NVIDIA part. The AMD card’s higher boost clock, higher pixel rate, and FP16 advantage make it competitive in this specific area. The AMD card also offers higher memory bandwidth at 128.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, which can benefit certain workloads.

The verdict depends on the software environment. If the primary applications are OpenCL-based, the NVIDIA card is the data-backed choice. If Vulkan is the dominant API, the AMD card is the better option. The 1-1 win split in benchmarks, combined with the close overall average scores (39568 vs 37157), means neither GPU is a universal winner. The NVIDIA card’s higher percentile ranking (82nd vs 80th) and better average score give it a slight edge in aggregate, but the AMD card’s Vulkan victory is too large to ignore for Vulkan-centric workflows.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process node | 8 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 5,400 million |

| Die size | 200 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor density | 43.5M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 832 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1537 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 2048 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT cores | 16 | 12 |

| Tensor cores | 64 | None |

| Pixel rate | 49.18 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 98.37 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 6.296 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 6.296 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 30 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Release date | 2022-03-21 | 2022-01-18 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 6.296 TFLOPS is nearly double the AMD card’s 3.565 TFLOPS, and its 2048 shading units provide a large parallel execution resource. The OpenCL benchmark reflects this, with a 17.8% lead. The NVIDIA card also has 16 RT cores and 64 tensor cores, which are absent or reduced on the AMD side—the AMD card has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores. For workloads that use OpenCL, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the NVIDIA card is the clear winner based on the data. Its lower TDP of 30 W (versus 50 W for AMD) also makes it more suitable for thermally constrained mobile environments.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in Vulkan rendering and memory bandwidth. Its Vulkan score of 39286 beats the NVIDIA card’s 37873 by 3.6%, and its memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s is one-third higher than the NVIDIA card’s 96.00 GB/s. The AMD card’s boost clock of 2321 MHz is substantially higher, leading to a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s, both of which exceed the NVIDIA card’s rates. The FP16 performance of 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) also gives it an advantage in mixed-precision workloads. For Vulkan-based applications, high-bandwidth memory access, or FP16 compute, the AMD card is the better pick. Its PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is narrower than the NVIDIA card’s x8, but the benchmark results do not show this as a limiting factor in the Vulkan test.