AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA TITAN RTX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains exactly two shared benchmark tests between the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA TITAN RTX is decisively ahead, and the margins are substantial enough to define the entire performance relationship between these two cards.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 35,027, while the NVIDIA TITAN RTX scores 144,858. That is a delta of -75.8%, meaning the TITAN RTX delivers roughly four times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is not subtle; it is a category-level difference rather than a generational step. For context, the W6400 sits at the 80th percentile among all GPUs in the database, but its nearest rivals in that ranking are the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37,507 (-0.9%), the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37,628 (-1.3%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37,648 (-1.3%). The TITAN RTX, despite being at the 76th percentile overall, produces an OpenCL score that dwarfs all of those cards. The percentile ranks can be misleading without the score distribution: the TITAN RTX's raw numbers are far above the W6400, even though the database places it lower in the overall percentile hierarchy due to a wider field of faster modern cards.

The Vulkan result follows the same pattern. The W6400 posts 39,286, while the TITAN RTX reaches 136,073, a delta of -71.1%. Again, the NVIDIA card is ahead by a factor of roughly 3.5x. Vulkan tends to favor architectures with larger shader arrays and wider memory buses, and the data reflects that. The W6400's Vulkan score is actually its stronger result relative to its OpenCL score, improving by about 12% between the two APIs, but that improvement does little to close the chasm to the TITAN RTX.

The head-to-head win count is unambiguous: the TITAN RTX wins 2 out of 2 shared benchmarks, and the W6400 wins none. There is no workload in the shared test set where the AMD card comes out ahead. The closest the W6400 gets is in Vulkan, where its 39,286 still trails the TITAN RTX's 136,073 by a wide margin. The delta percentages, -75.8% and -71.1%, are consistent in magnitude, suggesting the performance gap is stable across different API paths rather than being an artifact of one particular driver or test methodology.

Looking at the W6400's average benchmark score across all recorded tests, it lands at 37,157, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530, where the W6400 is ahead by 1.7%. That is a narrow margin, and it shows that the W6400 is competitive with older high-end cards from a previous era. But the TITAN RTX is not from that era; it is a newer, larger, and far more powerful part. The TITAN RTX's average benchmark score across its full test suite is 31,676, which is lower than the W6400's average, but that figure is dragged down by the inclusion of PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores that are much lower than its Geekbench results. The TITAN RTX's PassMark G3D score of 20,491 and GPU compute score of 10,034 are strong, but its DirectX 9 score of 223, DirectX 10 score of 147, DirectX 11 score of 189, and DirectX 12 score of 88 are not directly comparable to the Geekbench numbers. The average benchmark score is a composite, and in this case it obscures the TITAN RTX's dominance in the two tests that both cards actually share.

The practical interpretation is straightforward: for any compute or graphics workload represented by Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, the TITAN RTX is the far faster card. The W6400's advantage lies elsewhere, not in raw performance but in efficiency and physical footprint, which the next sections will address.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in purpose between these two cards. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX is the performance winner in every shared benchmark, and by a massive margin. If the priority is raw throughput in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the TITAN RTX is the only choice between the two. Its 144,858 OpenCL score and 136,073 Vulkan score place it in a different performance tier entirely from the W6400's 35,027 and 39,286. The TITAN RTX also brings 24 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the W6400's 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s. For memory-bound tasks, that bandwidth difference is likely to be just as decisive as the compute core difference.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is not without a case, but that case is built on factors other than benchmark scores. It draws 50 W versus the TITAN RTX's 280 W, it is a single-slot card with no external power connectors, and it requires only a 250 W suggested PSU compared to the TITAN RTX's 600 W suggestion. The W6400 is built on a 6 nm process, while the TITAN RTX uses 12 nm, and the W6400's die is 107 mm² against the TITAN RTX's 754 mm². Those are not performance metrics, but they matter for system integration, thermal management, and power-constrained environments.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, someone running OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads that fit within the TITAN RTX's capabilities should pick the TITAN RTX without hesitation. The performance gap is so large that no other consideration in the database outweighs it. The TITAN RTX also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the W6400's API support, so there is no feature-level reason to choose the AMD card for API compatibility.

The W6400 is the pick only when the constraints are physical or thermal. If the system cannot accommodate a dual-slot card, cannot supply two 8-pin power connectors, or cannot handle a 280 W TDP, the W6400 becomes the viable option. Its 50 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it a drop-in card for low-profile or power-limited systems. It also has a higher transistor density at 50.5M per mm² versus the TITAN RTX's 24.7M per mm², which reflects the newer manufacturing process, but that does not translate into competitive performance in the shared benchmarks.

The verdict is not balanced. The TITAN RTX wins on performance by every measurable shared metric. The W6400 wins on power efficiency and physical integration, but the database does not contain a single benchmark where that efficiency translates into a performance win. For anyone who needs compute performance, the choice is the TITAN RTX. For anyone who needs a low-power, single-slot card that can still execute modern APIs, the W6400 is the fallback, not the preference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN RTX wins with a score of 144,858 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400's 35,027, a delta of -75.8% for the AMD card.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37,157. It is 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (37,507), 1.3% behind the NVIDIA Tesla P4 (37,628) and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 (37,648), and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 672.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD card win any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two shared tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA TITAN RTX wins both. The W6400 has 0 wins in head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX has a TDP of 280 W with two 8-pin connectors and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: What API features do both cards support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX additionally has 576 tensor cores and 72 RT cores, while the AMD card has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA TITAN RTX uses the TU102 chip with Turing architecture. The W6400 is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, whereas the TITAN RTX is on a 12 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the W6400 has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, while the TITAN RTX has 18,600 million on a 754 mm² die. Transistor density favors the AMD card at 50.5M per mm² versus 24.7M per mm².

Clock speeds also differ. The W6400 has a base clock of 2039 MHz and a boost clock of 2321 MHz, while the TITAN RTX runs at 1350 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the AMD card and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card. The memory subsystem is fundamentally different: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus for the W6400, 24 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus for the TITAN RTX. Bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s.

Compute unit counts are far apart. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The TITAN RTX has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The TITAN RTX also has 72 RT cores and 576 tensor cores, while the W6400 has 12 RT cores and no tensor cores. Pixel rate is 74.27 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 169.9 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. Texture rate is 111.4 GTexel/s versus 509.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 3.565 TFLOPS versus 16.31 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 7.130 TFLOPS versus 32.62 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratios.

Power and physical specifications are opposites. The W6400 has a 50 W TDP, single-slot width, and no power connectors. The TITAN RTX has a 280 W TDP, dual-slot width, and two 8-pin connectors. Suggested PSU is 250 W for the AMD card and 600 W for the NVIDIA card. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 for the W6400 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the TITAN RTX. Display outputs are 2x DisplayPort 1.4a for the AMD card, while the NVIDIA card has 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The TITAN RTX has recorded dimensions of 267 mm length, 116 mm height, and 35 mm width; the W6400 has no recorded dimensions. Release dates differ as well: the W6400 launched on 2022-01-18, and the TITAN RTX launched on 2018-12-17. The TITAN RTX has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the W6400 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational and structural. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0, a modern gaming and compute architecture designed for efficiency at small die sizes. The NVIDIA TITAN RTX is built on Turing, an architecture that introduced dedicated RT cores and tensor cores for ray tracing and AI workloads. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the feature set at the API level is identical, but the underlying hardware differs completely.

The W6400's Navi 24 chip uses a 6 nm TSMC process, giving it a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The TITAN RTX's TU102 chip uses a 12 nm TSMC process, with a density of 24.7M per mm². The process advantage allows AMD to pack 5,400 million transistors into 107 mm², while NVIDIA spreads 18,600 million transistors across 754 mm². The TITAN RTX has more than three times the transistors and a die that is roughly seven times larger, which is why it delivers so much more compute throughput.

The compute architecture reflects the different design goals. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The TITAN RTX has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, six times the shading units and TMUs, and three times the ROPs. The TITAN RTX also includes 576 tensor cores, which are absent from the W6400 entirely. RT core counts are 72 for the NVIDIA card versus 12 for the AMD card. The TITAN RTX's tensor cores are a meaningful architectural feature for AI and machine learning workloads, though the database does not include a benchmark that isolates tensor core performance.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The W6400 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6, while the TITAN RTX uses a 384-bit bus with 24 GB. The bandwidth difference, 128.0 GB/s versus 672.0 GB/s, is a direct consequence of the bus width and memory clock. The TITAN RTX's memory system is designed for large datasets and high-throughput rendering, while the W6400's is sized for entry-level professional tasks.

The power architecture also reflects the design philosophy. The W6400 operates at 50 W with no external power connectors, relying entirely on the PCIe slot for power. The TITAN RTX requires 280 W and two 8-pin connectors. The W6400's single-slot design and low power draw make it suitable for compact systems, while the TITAN RTX's dual-slot design and 600 W suggested PSU indicate a high-end workstation or desktop environment. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x4 for the AMD card and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the NVIDIA card. The W6400's PCIe 4.0 support is newer, but the x4 lane count limits bandwidth compared to the TITAN RTX's x16 connection, even though PCIe 3.0 x16 offers more lanes at a lower per-lane speed. The TITAN RTX's display output set is also richer, adding HDMI 2.0 and USB Type-C alongside three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the W6400 offers only two DisplayPort 1.4a connections.