AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA Tesla P4 Comparison

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 and AMD Radeon PRO W6400 are both single-slot, low-profile professional GPUs, but they represent vastly different design philosophies and eras. The Tesla P4 is a Pascal-generation card from 2016, while the W6400 is a modern RDNA 2 part from 2022. The benchmark data shows a near-total tie in aggregate performance, but the individual test results reveal distinct strengths that align with their respective architectures.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their two head-to-head benchmark wins exactly, with each taking one test. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 edges out the NVIDIA Tesla P4 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 35,027 against 34,947. That is a razor-thin margin of just 0.2 percent, effectively a statistical dead heat for compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The raw scores are so close that in real-world OpenCL applications, the difference would be imperceptible.

The NVIDIA Tesla P4 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test decisively. Its score of 40,309 beats the W6400's 39,286 by a margin of 2.6 percent. This is a more substantial gap, indicating that the Tesla P4 has a meaningful advantage in Vulkan-based rendering and compute tasks. The delta is small in absolute terms—just over 1,000 points—but it represents a consistent edge for the NVIDIA card in that specific API.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the aggregate average benchmark scores confirm how closely matched these two cards are. The Tesla P4 has an average benchmark score of 37,628, while the W6400 sits at 37,157. That places the Tesla P4 1.3 percent ahead of the W6400 in the aggregate. Both cards occupy the same performance tier, landing in the 80th to 81st percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals for the Tesla P4 include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37,648 (just 0.1 percent ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37,507 (0.3 percent behind). For the W6400, the same rivals appear: the RX Vega 56 is 0.9 percent ahead, and the RTX 4070 is 1.3 percent ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X trails the W6400 by 1.7 percent.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is that neither card dominates the other. The Tesla P4 wins the Vulkan test by 2.6 percent, while the W6400 wins the OpenCL test by 0.2 percent. The aggregate scores are separated by just 1.3 percent in favor of the Tesla P4. For professional users, this means the choice between the two is unlikely to hinge on raw compute performance alone, as both deliver comparable results in synthetic benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 has an average benchmark score of 37,628, which is 1.3 percent higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's average of 37,157.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 scores 40,309 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's score of 39,286 by a delta of 2.6 percent.

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 35,027, slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P4's 34,947, a marginal 0.2 percent difference.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 is in the 81st percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is in the 80th percentile.

Q: How does each card compare to the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 is 0.3 percent ahead of the RX Vega 56, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is 0.9 percent behind it.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla P4 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision based on workload type. For users who rely heavily on Vulkan APIs, the NVIDIA Tesla P4 is the stronger choice. Its 2.6 percent lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any metric, and its overall average benchmark score is also higher by 1.3 percent. The Tesla P4 also offers double the memory capacity at 8 GB versus 4 GB, which is a practical advantage for larger datasets despite the older GDDR5 technology.

For users who prioritize OpenCL compute, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 holds a narrow but real edge. Its 0.2 percent lead in the OpenCL test, while small, indicates that the newer RDNA 2 architecture handles this API at least as well as the older Pascal design. The W6400 also consumes less power, with a 50 W TDP compared to the Tesla P4's 75 W, and it has display outputs, whereas the Tesla P4 has none.

The verdict from the benchmark data is that neither card is a clear winner. The Tesla P4 is the better choice for Vulkan-centric workloads and scenarios where the larger 8 GB frame buffer matters. The W6400 is the better choice for OpenCL-centric tasks and for systems where lower power draw and integrated display outputs are required. The 1.3 percent aggregate score difference in favor of the Tesla P4 is too small to be decisive on its own.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 features 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla P4's pixel rate is 71.30 GPixel/s, while the W6400's is 74.27 GPixel/s, giving the AMD card a slight edge in pixel throughput. The texture rate tells a different story: the Tesla P4 delivers 178.2 GTexel/s, far ahead of the W6400's 111.4 GTexel/s.

The FP32 compute performance also favors the NVIDIA card. The Tesla P4 delivers 5.704 TFLOPS, while the W6400 provides 3.565 TFLOPS. However, the FP16 comparison is starkly inverted. The W6400 delivers 7.130 TFLOPS of FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, while the Tesla P4 offers only 89.12 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio. This makes the W6400 vastly more capable for FP16 workloads.

Memory specifications differ significantly. The Tesla P4 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also diverge: the Tesla P4 runs at 886 MHz base and 1114 MHz boost, while the W6400 runs at 2039 MHz base and 2321 MHz boost. The W6400's memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), versus the Tesla P4's 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Power consumption is lower on the W6400 at 50 W versus 75 W. Both cards are single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The bus interfaces differ: the Tesla P4 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are a major differentiator—the W6400 has two DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Tesla P4 has no outputs at all. The Tesla P4 measures 168 mm in length, while the W6400's dimensions are not provided.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 16 nm process. It contains 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The card belongs to the Tesla Pascal generation and supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, also manufactured by TSMC but on a 6 nm process. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a much smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm²—more than double the Tesla P4's density. The W6400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The RDNA 2 architecture brings features that Pascal lacks, most notably 12 ray tracing cores. The Tesla P4 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The W6400 also does not have tensor cores. The FP16 performance differential is a direct result of the architectural design: RDNA 2 processes FP16 at a 2:1 rate relative to FP32, while Pascal's FP16 throughput is a minuscule 1:64 ratio. This makes the W6400 architecturally suited for workloads that leverage half-precision math, while the Tesla P4 is not.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life. The Tesla P4 was released in 2016 and has a predecessor in Tesla Maxwell and a successor in Tesla Volta. The W6400 was released in 2022 and has a predecessor in Radeon Pro Vega, with no listed successor.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results and specifications point to specific use cases for each card. The NVIDIA Tesla P4 wins in Vulkan-based applications, where its 2.6 percent lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test demonstrates a clear advantage. It also offers higher raw FP32 compute performance at 5.704 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS, making it better suited for traditional single-precision compute tasks. The 8 GB memory capacity, double that of the W6400, is a decisive advantage for workloads that require larger frame buffers or datasets that exceed 4 GB. The Tesla P4's higher texture rate of 178.2 GTexel/s also gives it an edge in texture-heavy workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins in OpenCL compute, where its 0.2 percent lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while marginal, establishes it as at least equal to the Tesla P4 in that API. The W6400 is overwhelmingly superior in FP16 performance, delivering 7.130 TFLOPS against the Tesla P4's 89.12 GFLOPS—a difference of roughly 80 times. This makes the W6400 the clear choice for machine learning inference or other workloads that rely on half-precision arithmetic. The W6400 also has a higher pixel rate at 74.27 GPixel/s versus 71.30 GPixel/s, and its display outputs make it suitable for workstation setups that require direct monitor connectivity. The lower 50 W TDP gives it an efficiency advantage in power-constrained environments.

The data shows a balanced matchup. The Tesla P4 is the stronger compute card for FP32 and Vulkan tasks with more memory, while the W6400 is the more modern, efficient card with FP16 capabilities and display support. Users must weigh which of these factors matters most for their specific workloads.