AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A5000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 compare to the NVIDIA RTX A5000 in raw compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5000 wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 157,905 versus 35,027 for the AMD card, a delta of -77.8% for the W6400. In Geekbench Vulkan, the A5000 scores 137,828 versus 39,286, a -71.5% gap.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a higher average benchmark score of 37,157 compared to the NVIDIA RTX A5000’s 33,622. However, this average is skewed because the A5000’s benchmark suite includes many Passmark DirectX tests with low scores, while the W6400 only has two Geekbench results.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between these two cards?

A: The AMD card has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, yielding 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A5000 has six times the capacity and six times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a boost clock of 2321 MHz, while the NVIDIA RTX A5000 boosts to 1695 MHz. The AMD card’s clocks are substantially higher, but the A5000 compensates with far more shading units and texture units.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products in the database. The AMD card was released on 2022-01-18 and the NVIDIA card on 2021-04-11.

Q: What is the power consumption of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX A5000 has a TDP of 230 W, uses one 8-pin connector, and requires a 550 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is built on the Navi 24 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process. It packs 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX A5000 uses the GA102 chip with Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process. It contains 28,300 million transistors spread across a 628 mm² die, with a lower density of 45.1M per mm².

The compute scaling is dramatic. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. It also includes 12 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The A5000 has 8,192 shading units (over 10x more), 256 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 64 RT cores, and 256 tensor cores.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The W6400 runs at a base of 2039 MHz and boosts to 2321 MHz. The A5000’s base is 1170 MHz with a boost of 1695 MHz. This means the W6400 relies on clock speed, while the A5000 relies on massive parallel resources.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The W6400 uses a 64-bit bus, limiting bandwidth to 128.0 GB/s. The A5000 uses a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s. Both use GDDR6 at 16 Gbps effective, but the A5000’s wider bus changes the throughput profile completely.

The A5000 also offers more display outputs (4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 2x). Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A5000’s FP32 throughput is 27.77 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400. The FP16 rates also differ: the A5000 runs 27.77 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while the W6400 runs 7.130 TFLOPS at 2:1.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Both are Geekbench tests, and the NVIDIA RTX A5000 wins both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the A5000 scores 157,905 versus the W6400’s 35,027. The delta is -77.8%, meaning the W6400 trails by more than three-quarters. This is the largest gap in any test. The A5000’s 8,192 shading units and 256 tensor cores likely drive this massive OpenCL advantage, since OpenCL workloads often scale with compute unit count.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A5000 scores 137,828 versus 39,286 for the W6400, a -71.5% delta. While narrower than the OpenCL gap, it is still a decisive victory. The Vulkan test may benefit from the A5000’s higher texture rate (433.9 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (162.7 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s).

The W6400 has zero wins in the head-to-head data. The A5000 has two wins. Looking at raw scores, the A5000’s OpenCL result is 4.5x higher than the W6400’s, and its Vulkan result is 3.5x higher.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story. The W6400’s average is 37,157, while the A5000’s is 33,622. This is because the A5000’s benchmark set includes several Passmark tests with low scores (DirectX 10: 153, DirectX 11: 187, DirectX 12: 87, DirectX 9: 251). The W6400 only has two Geekbench scores, which are both above 35,000. The A5000’s Passmark G3D score of 22,541 and GPU compute score of 12,455 are respectable but drag down the average alongside the DirectX tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | NVIDIA RTX A5000 |

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

| Process node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 28,300 million |

| Die size | 107 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor density | 50.5M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2039 MHz | 1170 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2321 MHz | 1695 MHz |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory bus | 64 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 768.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 768 | 8192 |

| TMUs | 48 | 256 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT cores | 12 | 64 |

| Tensor cores | None | 256 |

| Pixel rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 162.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 433.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 27.77 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 27.77 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 230 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 550 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release date | 2022-01-18 | 2021-04-11 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | None listed | Workstation Ada |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in efficiency and physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP means no power connector is needed, and it fits in a single slot. The suggested PSU is 250 W, which makes it suitable for compact or low-power workstations. Its 6 nm process and smaller die (107 mm²) also make it easier to cool with a simple air cooler. For tasks that do not exceed 4 GB of memory and do not require heavy compute, it consumes far less power.

The NVIDIA RTX A5000 wins in every performance metric recorded. It has 10.7x more shading units, 5.3x more RT cores, and 256 tensor cores versus none on the AMD card. Its memory bandwidth is 6x higher, and its FP32 throughput is 7.8x higher. The 24 GB memory capacity is suited for large datasets, and the 4x DisplayPort outputs allow more displays.

Benchmark results show the A5000 leads by 77.8% in OpenCL and 71.5% in Vulkan. The W6400’s higher clock speeds (2039 MHz base, 2321 MHz boost) do not compensate for the A5000’s raw resource advantage. The A5000’s texture rate (433.9 GTexel/s) is 3.9x higher, and its pixel rate (162.7 GPixel/s) is 2.2x higher.

In terms of benchmark percentiles, the W6400 sits at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the A5000 sits at the 78th. This reflects the different benchmark sets. The W6400’s nearest rivals include the RX Vega 56 (-0.9%), Tesla P4 (-1.3%), and RTX 4070 (-1.3%). The A5000’s nearest rivals include the GTX 1060 5 GB (-0.2%), RX 7700S (-0.7%), and HD 7950 (-1%).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA RTX A5000 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark. If the workload requires OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the A5000 delivers 3.5x to 4.5x the performance of the W6400. Its 24 GB memory and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large rendering tasks, machine learning inference, or multi-display setups. The 256 tensor cores open up AI acceleration that the AMD card cannot offer.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is the choice only when power and space are the primary constraints. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it easy to install in small chassis. The 6 nm process gives it a density advantage (50.5M transistors per mm² versus 45.1M), but that does not translate into performance wins. It is also a newer release (2022-01-18 versus 2021-04-11), but age does not help in the measured results.

For a professional workstation handling 3D rendering, simulation, or GPU compute, the RTX A5000 is the clear pick. For a basic display adapter or low-power CAD machine with modest memory needs, the W6400 can suffice. The benchmark delta of -77.8% in OpenCL and -71.5% in Vulkan leaves no room for ambiguity: the A5000 wins on performance, while the W6400 wins on efficiency. Choose based on whether the task is compute-bound or space-bound.