AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs NVIDIA TITAN V Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and NVIDIA TITAN V are both end-of-life workstation-class GPUs, yet they represent radically different design philosophies and performance tiers. The data shows a stark contrast: the Radeon PRO W6400 is a low-power, entry-level professional card built on a modern 6 nm process, while the TITAN V is a massive, power-hungry compute flagship from an older 12 nm node. Benchmark results place both at the 78th percentile among all GPUs, but their real-world workloads diverge sharply. The TITAN V dominates in raw compute, while the W6400 offers modern feature support and efficiency at a fraction of the power draw.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between the two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA TITAN V scores 157,265 points, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 34,511 points. That represents a delta of -78.1% for the Radeon, meaning the TITAN V outperforms it by a factor of roughly 4.5x. This is not a close contest; the TITAN V’s compute advantage is overwhelming.

In the context of the nearest rival lists, the W6400’s OpenCL score of 34,511 sits nearly identical to the AMD Radeon HD 7970 (34,541, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (34,427, delta 0.2%). The TITAN V’s average benchmark score of 34,355 is listed as a nearest rival to the W6400, with a delta of 0.5% — but that average is skewed by the TITAN V’s other benchmark results. The TITAN V’s Geekbench OpenCL score alone is 157,265, which is far above any of its listed rivals. Its nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Radeon RX 480 (34,059, delta 0.9%), but the TITAN V’s actual compute capability is in a different league.

The TITAN V also has a strong showing in other benchmarks, including 19,805 in Passmark G3D and 9,263 in Passmark GPU Compute, though the W6400 lacks comparable results for those tests. The TITAN V’s Vulkan score of 152,117 further underscores its compute strength. The data clearly shows that in any compute-heavy OpenCL workload, the TITAN V is the superior choice, while the W6400’s single benchmark result places it in the same performance bracket as older mid-range Radeon cards.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The NVIDIA TITAN V, by contrast, uses the GV100 chip based on the older Volta architecture, also from TSMC but on a 12 nm process. It houses 21,100 million transistors on a massive 815 mm² die, with a density of just 25.9 million per mm².

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The TITAN V has 12 GB of HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus, achieving 651.3 GB/s of bandwidth — more than five times the bandwidth of the Radeon. The TITAN V’s memory clock is 848 MHz (1,696 Mbps effective), while the W6400’s memory runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), though the narrower bus severely limits the Radeon’s total throughput.

Compute resources tell a similar story. The W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), 32 raster operation units (ROPs), and 12 ray tracing cores. The TITAN V has 5,120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 640 tensor cores, with no dedicated RT cores. The TITAN V’s FP32 performance is 14.90 TFLOPS, versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the W6400. In FP16, the TITAN V reaches 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the W6400 manages 7.130 TFLOPS (also 2:1). Pixel rates are 139.7 GPixel/s for the TITAN V and 74.27 GPixel/s for the W6400; texture rates are 465.6 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design differ enormously. The W6400 has a 50 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The TITAN V has a 250 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The TITAN V is also physically larger at 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, 112 mm (4.4 inches) tall, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) wide. The W6400’s dimensions are not listed, but its single-slot design and lack of connectors imply a compact form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN V wins decisively. It scores 157,265 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 scores 34,511, a delta of -78.1% for the Radeon.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The TITAN V has 12 GB of HBM2 memory with a 3072-bit bus and 651.3 GB/s bandwidth. The W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The TITAN V offers over five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the process nodes for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 is built on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA TITAN V uses a 12 nm TSMC process. The Radeon’s newer node allows for a much smaller die (107 mm² vs 815 mm²) and higher transistor density.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has dedicated ray tracing cores, with 12 RT cores. The NVIDIA TITAN V has no RT cores, though it does have 640 tensor cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The W6400 has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU. The TITAN V has a 250 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average benchmark score of 34,511. The NVIDIA TITAN V has an average benchmark score of 34,355, based on a wider set of tests including Passmark and Vulkan benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | NVIDIA TITAN V |

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

| Chip | Navi 24 | GV100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Volta |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 21,100 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 815 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 25.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 3072 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 651.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 48 | 320 |

| ROPs | 32 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Tensor Cores | None | 640 |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 139.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 465.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.565 TFLOPS | 14.90 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 29.80 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 250 W |

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

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2017-12-06 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 20 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN V wins decisively in raw compute performance. Its 14.90 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.80 TFLOPS FP16 are over four times the W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS and 7.130 TFLOPS, respectively. For any workload that relies on massive parallel processing — such as deep learning, scientific simulation, or heavy 3D rendering — the TITAN V is the clear choice. Its 12 GB of HBM2 memory with 651.3 GB/s bandwidth also makes it far better suited for large datasets that exceed the W6400’s 4 GB GDDR6 frame buffer. The TITAN V’s 640 tensor cores further accelerate AI and machine learning tasks, a feature entirely absent from the Radeon.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 wins on efficiency and modern feature support. Its 50 W TDP is one-fifth of the TITAN V’s 250 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connectors, making it far easier to integrate into compact or low-power systems. The W6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the TITAN V is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). For users who need ray tracing, the W6400’s 12 RT cores provide hardware acceleration that the TITAN V completely lacks. Its PCIe 4.0 x4 interface is newer than the TITAN V’s PCIe 3.0 x16, though the narrower lane count may limit bandwidth in some scenarios. The W6400’s 6 nm process and 50.5M transistors per mm² density reflect a much more modern design, delivering its performance at a fraction of the silicon area and power.

In terms of use cases, the TITAN V is the workstation for compute-heavy tasks where performance is the only metric that matters. The W6400 is better suited for light professional workloads, multi-display setups, or systems where power consumption and physical footprint are critical constraints. The benchmark data underscores this split: the TITAN V’s Geekbench OpenCL score is 157,265, while the W6400’s is 34,511. Yet both cards sit at the 78th percentile, a reminder that percentile rankings can obscure massive internal performance differences. For a user prioritizing raw throughput, the TITAN V is unmatched; for a user prioritizing efficiency and modern APIs, the W6400 holds its own in a more limited sphere.