GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA T1000

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their two benchmark matchups almost perfectly, but the margins tell very different stories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA T1000 takes the win with a score of 37704 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400’s 35027, a delta of -7.1% from AMD’s perspective. That is a solid, if not overwhelming, lead for NVIDIA in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads. The T1000’s OpenCL result also lands it ahead of its own nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 5300M, by 0.7%, and it edges out the GeForce GTX TITAN X by 0.7% as well.

Flip to Geekbench Vulkan, and the tables turn decisively. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 39286, which is 12.7% higher than the T1000’s 34874. That is a substantial gap, nearly double the margin NVIDIA enjoyed in OpenCL. The W6400’s Vulkan score is strong enough to push its average benchmark score to 37157, while the T1000’s average sits at 36289. Despite the split, the W6400’s average is 2.4% higher than the T1000’s average, meaning the AMD card wins the overall aggregate by a narrow but real margin.

Look closer at the rival comparisons, and the positioning becomes clearer. The W6400’s average score of 37157 places it within 0.9% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, within 1.3% of the NVIDIA Tesla P4, and within 1.3% of the GeForce RTX 4070. It beats the GeForce GTX TITAN X by 1.7%. The T1000’s average of 36289 is within 0.7% of the RX 5300M and GTX TITAN X, 1.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Duo, and 2.2% behind the Quadro GV100. Neither card dominates its peer group, but the W6400 consistently punches slightly above its weight in the aggregate.

The raw numbers hint at why. The W6400’s boost clock is 2321 MHz versus the T1000’s 1395 MHz, and its pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s is 66% higher than the T1000’s 44.64 GPixel/s. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 111.4 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. Those figures translate directly into the Vulkan advantage, where geometry and fill-rate-bound tasks favor the AMD architecture. Meanwhile, the T1000’s 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, fed by a 128-bit bus, gives it an edge in OpenCL workloads that are memory-latency sensitive. The W6400 counters with a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, which explains why it falls behind in OpenCL despite having higher raw clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 leads with an average benchmark score of 37157, compared to the NVIDIA T1000’s 36289. That puts the W6400 roughly 2.4% ahead in the aggregate.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 39286, which is 12.7% higher than the NVIDIA T1000’s 34874. This is the W6400’s strongest benchmark result.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T1000 win any benchmark outright?

A: Yes, the T1000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 37704, beating the W6400’s 35027 by 7.1%. That is the T1000’s only head-to-head victory.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, but the NVIDIA T1000 uses a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 was released on January 18, 2022, and the NVIDIA T1000 was released earlier on May 5, 2021.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a transistor density of 50.5M per mm², more than double the NVIDIA T1000’s 23.5M per mm². This reflects the W6400’s 6 nm process node versus the T1000’s 12 nm node.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. If your primary applications rely on Vulkan, think modern game engines, certain CAD viewports, or Linux-based rendering pipelines, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is the stronger pick. Its 12.7% Vulkan lead over the T1000 is the single biggest margin in either card’s head-to-head results, and its higher pixel and texture rates (74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s, respectively) give it a structural advantage in geometry-heavy tasks. The W6400 also holds the higher average benchmark score (37157 vs 36289), making it the better all-rounder on paper.

Conversely, the NVIDIA T1000 is the choice for OpenCL-centric compute. Its 37704 OpenCL score beats the W6400 by 7.1%, and its 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth on a 128-bit bus is 25% higher than the W6400’s. If your software stack is built around OpenCL acceleration, the T1000’s memory subsystem will matter more than the W6400’s clock speed advantage. The T1000 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs versus the W6400’s two DisplayPort 1.4a connections, which is a practical benefit for multi-monitor workstation setups.

Neither card is a runaway winner. The W6400 wins the aggregate benchmark average, but the T1000 wins the OpenCL test that many professional apps still use. For a balanced recommendation, the W6400 edges out the T1000 for general workstation use due to its higher average score and Vulkan dominance, but the T1000 remains competitive for specific compute tasks. Both cards share the same 50 W TDP and single-slot form factor, so power and space constraints will not differentiate them.

Specification Differences

The core specs diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses a 6 nm process node with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, while the NVIDIA T1000 uses a 12 nm node with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. Clock speeds favor AMD: the W6400 runs at a 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost, versus the T1000’s 1065 MHz base and 1395 MHz boost. Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA: the T1000 offers 160.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the W6400 provides 128.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. Both have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Compute resources differ as well. The T1000 has more shading units (896 vs 768) and more texture mapping units (56 vs 48), but both have 32 ROPs. The W6400 has 12 ray tracing cores, while the T1000 has none. Pixel rate goes to AMD at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 44.64 GPixel/s, and texture rate goes to AMD at 111.4 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. FP32 performance also favors AMD at 3.565 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 7.130 TFLOPS versus 5.000 TFLOPS.

The bus interface differs: the W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, while the T1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are another split: the W6400 has 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the T1000 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions favor the T1000 in length, at 156 mm (6.1 inches) and 69 mm (2.7 inches) height, while the W6400’s length and height are not specified. Both are single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 24 chip, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation. The NVIDIA T1000 is built on Turing, using the TU117 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation. RDNA 2.0 brings hardware ray tracing support, which the W6400 implements with 12 dedicated RT cores; the T1000 has no RT cores at all. This is a fundamental feature difference, not just a clock speed gap.

The process node difference is stark: 6 nm for AMD versus 12 nm for NVIDIA, both fabricated by TSMC. That explains the transistor density gap, 50.5M per mm² for the W6400 versus 23.5M per mm² for the T1000, even though the T1000 has a larger die (200 mm² vs 107 mm²) and more total transistors (4,700 million vs 5,400 million, though the W6400 actually has more). The W6400’s smaller die and higher density allow for the much higher clock speeds, which drive its fill-rate and FP32 advantages.

API support also differs. The W6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T1000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation reflects the W6400’s newer architecture and ray tracing capability. The T1000’s Turing architecture is older, but it still delivers competitive OpenCL performance due to its memory bandwidth and higher shading unit count. The release timeline confirms this: the W6400 launched on January 18, 2022, while the T1000 launched on May 5, 2021, making the AMD part roughly eight months newer.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in Vulkan-based workloads, and the numbers are unambiguous. Its 39286 Vulkan score is 12.7% higher than the T1000’s, and its pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s is 66% higher. That makes it the better choice for applications that leverage Vulkan for rendering, such as modern game engines, real-time visualization tools, and Linux-based graphics stacks. The W6400 also wins on raw compute throughput, 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.500 TFLOPS, and on texture rate, 111.4 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. For tasks that are fill-rate-bound or shader-heavy, the W6400 has the clear edge.

The NVIDIA T1000 wins in OpenCL-based compute and multi-display setups. Its 37704 OpenCL score beats the W6400 by 7.1%, and its 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 25% higher. That bandwidth advantage matters for OpenCL kernels that stream large datasets. The T1000 also has 896 shading units versus 768, which helps in parallel compute tasks that scale with core count. For professionals running OpenCL-accelerated simulations, video processing, or scientific computing, the T1000 is the safer bet. Additionally, the T1000’s four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs give it a clear win for driving multiple monitors, while the W6400 is limited to two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

The average benchmark score favors the W6400 (37157 vs 36289), so for mixed workloads that use both Vulkan and OpenCL, the AMD card comes out slightly ahead. But the T1000’s OpenCL win is substantial enough that users with OpenCL-only workflows should not overlook it. Both cards are end-of-life, so the choice comes down to software compatibility and workload mix rather than future-proofing. The W6400’s ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it the more modern architecture, but the T1000’s memory bandwidth and shading unit count keep it competitive in compute tasks.