AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA RTX A6000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two workstation cards. In the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA RTX A6000 wins outright, and the margins are substantial. The Geekbench OpenCL result favors the RTX A6000 by 453.7%, with scores of 193,937 versus 35,027 for the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. That is not a marginal difference; it is a magnitude of separation that speaks to entirely different performance tiers.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The RTX A6000 scores 164,462 against 39,286 for the W6400, a delta of 318.6%. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature set is not the differentiator. The raw compute and graphics throughput simply scales with the hardware resources, and the data reflects that scaling.

Looking at the broader database averages, the RTX A6000 holds an average benchmark score of 44,075 across all its recorded tests, placing it in the 84th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti, which trails by 1.6%, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile, which is only 0.9% behind. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, by contrast, averages 37,157 and sits in the 80th percentile. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, is only 0.9% ahead, while the NVIDIA Tesla P4 and GeForce RTX 4070 both lead by 1.3%. The average score gap between the two cards is roughly 18.6%, which is far smaller than the head-to-head deltas suggest, because the RTX A6000 has additional benchmark results (Passmark tests) that pull its average down relative to its peak OpenCL and Vulkan performance.

The RTX A6000 also records wins in every Passmark category: DirectX 10 (155 vs. no data for W6400), DirectX 11 (191 vs. none), DirectX 12 (87 vs. none), DirectX 9 (245 vs. none), G2D (913 vs. none), G3D (22,577 vs. none), and GPU compute (14,110 vs. none). The AMD card has no recorded Passmark results, so these comparisons cannot be made directly, but the available data still favors NVIDIA overwhelmingly in the two tests where both cards appear.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon could not be more different. The NVIDIA RTX A6000 uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on TSMC's 6 nm node. The transistor counts reflect the scale: the GA102 packs 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, yielding a density of 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Navi 24 is far smaller at 107 mm² with 5,400 million transistors, but the density is actually higher at 50.5 million per square millimeter. So AMD's process node is denser, but NVIDIA's chip is vastly larger and more complex.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The RTX A6000 has 10,752 shading units, 336 texture mapping units, and 112 raster operation pipelines. It also includes 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with 12 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. The FP32 throughput tells the story: 38.71 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 3.565 TFLOPS for AMD. That is a 10.9x difference in raw single-precision compute. FP16 is interesting: the RTX A6000 achieves 38.71 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not gain extra throughput in half precision, while the W6400 hits 7.130 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. So AMD's architecture is more efficient in half-precision relative to its own FP32, but it still cannot approach NVIDIA's absolute numbers.

Memory is another chasm. The RTX A6000 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 768.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 128.0 GB/s. That is a 6x difference in capacity and exactly a 6x difference in bandwidth. The memory clock is identical at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth gap comes purely from the bus width. The RTX A6000 also has a larger pixel rate (201.6 GPixel/s vs. 74.27 GPixel/s) and texture rate (604.8 GTexel/s vs. 111.4 GTexel/s), consistent with its higher ROP and TMU counts.

Clock speeds favor AMD in raw frequency: the W6400 boosts to 2321 MHz versus 1800 MHz for the RTX A6000, and its base clock is 2039 MHz versus 1410 MHz. But the NVIDIA card compensates with far more parallel hardware, so the clock advantage does not translate into a performance win. The power envelope is also stark: the RTX A6000 is rated at 300 W with a suggested 700 W power supply, while the W6400 sips at 50 W and needs only a 250 W supply. The physical cards differ too: the RTX A6000 is dual-slot with an 8-pin EPS connector, while the W6400 is single-slot with no power connectors. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on NVIDIA versus 2x on AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The data makes clear that the RTX A6000 wins every head-to-head test, so the question becomes which workloads benefit most from its dominance. The 453.7% OpenCL lead suggests compute-intensive tasks, such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference (if tensor cores are used), will see massive gains on the NVIDIA card. The 318.6% Vulkan lead points to graphics workloads, including real-time visualization or game engine rendering, also favoring NVIDIA heavily.

The RTX A6000's 48 GB memory capacity and 768 GB/s bandwidth make it suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-GPU rendering scenes that would exhaust the W6400's 4 GB frame buffer. The 112 ROPs and 604.8 GTexel/s texture rate support high-resolution rasterization without bottlenecking. The 336 tensor cores add dedicated hardware for AI-accelerated tasks, which the W6400 lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400, despite losing every shared benchmark, has its own niche. Its 50 W TDP and single-slot design mean it can fit into compact workstations or systems with minimal power headroom. The 6 nm process gives it a transistor density advantage over the NVIDIA card, which could translate to better efficiency per watt in light workloads. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio means half-precision compute is relatively faster than on the RTX A6000, though still far below in absolute terms. For basic 2D workstation tasks, video playback, or entry-level CAD with modest geometry, the W6400 may suffice, and its 80th percentile ranking shows it is not a weak card in the broader database context.

The RTX A6000 also holds a production status of end-of-life, as does the W6400, so both are legacy products. The NVIDIA card was released on 2020-10-04, while the AMD card came later on 2022-01-18. The W6400's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the RTX A6000's predecessor is the Quadro Turing, and its successor is the Workstation Ada line.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A6000 is in a different performance class than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. In the only two comparable tests, NVIDIA leads by 453.7% and 318.6%, respectively. The average benchmark score of 44,075 versus 37,157 reinforces that even when accounting for a wider test suite, the RTX A6000 holds a significant edge. The 84th percentile versus 80th percentile ranking further confirms that the NVIDIA card sits higher in the global GPU distribution.

For professionals who need maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, or ray tracing and tensor core acceleration, the RTX A6000 is the clear choice from the data. Its 38.71 TFLOPS FP32, 48 GB VRAM, and 336 tensor cores provide capabilities that the W6400 cannot match. The launch MSRP of 4,649 USD reflects that positioning, though pricing is not a factor in this analysis.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is suited for scenarios where power consumption and physical footprint matter more than raw performance. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of external power connectors make it easy to deploy in constrained systems. For light workstation duties, it is a capable card, but the data shows it will struggle in any workload that pushes graphics or compute hard. The 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 and 128 GB/s bandwidth are limiting factors for modern 3D applications.

There is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the W6400 wins. Every shared test goes to NVIDIA. The verdict is straightforward: pick the RTX A6000 for performance, pick the W6400 only if power and space constraints are absolute.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A6000 in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A6000 scores 193,937 versus 35,027 for the AMD Radeon PRO W6400, a delta of 453.7%.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX A6000 has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the W6400 has 4 GB. Both use 16 Gbps effective memory, but the bus widths differ: 384-bit versus 64-bit, resulting in 768.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD card have tensor cores?

A: No. The W6400 has 12 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The RTX A6000 has 84 ray tracing cores and 336 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 boosts to 2321 MHz, while the RTX A6000 boosts to 1800 MHz. However, the NVIDIA card still wins all benchmarks due to far more shading units (10,752 vs. 768).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX A6000 is rated at 300 W with a suggested 700 W power supply, while the W6400 is rated at 50 W with a suggested 250 W power supply. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with an 8-pin EPS connector; the AMD card is single-slot with no power connectors.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A6000 averages 44,075 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 84th percentile. The W6400 averages 37,157, placing it in the 80th percentile. The RTX A6000's nearest rival is the RTX 4090 Mobile (0.9% behind), while the W6400's nearest rival is the RX Vega 56 (0.9% ahead).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A6000 | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 |

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

| Chip | GA102 | Navi 24 |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 6 nm (TSMC) |

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

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 107 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 50.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1410 MHz | 2039 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1800 MHz | 2321 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10752 | 768 |

| TMUs | 336 | 48 |

| ROPs | 112 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 84 | 12 |

| Tensor Cores | 336 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 201.6 GPixel/s | 74.27 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 604.8 GTexel/s | 111.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 38.71 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 38.71 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 50 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 250 W |

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

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

| Release Date | 2020-10-04 | 2022-01-18 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Turing | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Successor | Workstation Ada | None |

| Launch MSRP | 4,649 USD | Not available |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 193937 | 35027 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 164462 | 39286 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 44075 | 37157 |

| Percentile | 84 | 80 |