AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 sit at nearly identical positions in the overall GPU hierarchy, with both landing in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. Their average benchmark scores are separated by less than one percent, making the choice between them a matter of workload fit rather than raw performance dominance. The RX 9070 GRE posts an average score of 134,417, while the PRO W6800 averages 133,588, a delta of just 0.6 percent in favor of the newer card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 9070 GRE takes a decisive 11.6 percent lead. The RX 9070 GRE scores 134,417 against the PRO W6800's 120,399. This is a substantial margin in a compute-oriented API, suggesting the RDNA 4.0 architecture has made significant strides in raw compute throughput per clock.

The PRO W6800 does not go down without a fight in other API tests, though the data only records its scores. In Geekbench Metal, the PRO W6800 reaches 171,137, which is its strongest showing across any benchmark. Its Vulkan score of 109,228, however, trails its own OpenCL result, indicating some API-specific variance in driver optimization. The RX 9070 GRE has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores in this data, so the comparison hinges entirely on the OpenCL result.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both cards sit in a tight cluster. The RX 9070 GRE trails the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 0.6 percent and the NVIDIA A10M by 0.6 percent, while leading the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti by 1.9 percent. The PRO W6800, meanwhile, trails the RTX 4000 Ada by 1.2 percent and the A10M by 1.2 percent, but leads the RTX 3090 Ti by 1.3 percent. The delta between the two AMD cards is the smallest gap in either card's nearest-rival list, reinforcing how close these products are on average.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE averages 134,417, which is 0.6 percent higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6800's 133,588.

Q: How much faster is the RX 9070 GRE in OpenCL?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 9070 GRE scores 134,417 versus 120,399 for the PRO W6800, an 11.6 percent advantage for the newer card.

Q: Does the PRO W6800 win any benchmark in the data?

A: The head-to-head data records one OpenCL test, which the RX 9070 GRE wins. The PRO W6800's best score is 171,137 in Geekbench Metal, but no direct comparison exists for that API.

Q: How do these cards compare to NVIDIA workstation options?

A: The RX 9070 GRE trails the RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 0.6 percent, while the PRO W6800 trails it by 1.2 percent. Both AMD cards lead the RTX 3090 Ti, with the RX 9070 GRE ahead by 1.9 percent and the PRO W6800 ahead by 1.3 percent.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RX 9070 GRE is listed as Active, while the PRO W6800 is End-of-life.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the RX 9070 GRE has 12 GB of GDDR6.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The RX 9070 GRE uses the Navi 48 chip based on RDNA 4.0, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip based on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. This generational gap explains much of the performance-per-watt difference between them.

Transistor counts tell a striking story of process density. The RX 9070 GRE packs 53,900 million transistors into a 357 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 151.0 million per mm². The PRO W6800, despite having a larger 520 mm² die, houses only 26,800 million transistors, for a density of 51.5 million per mm². The RX 9070 GRE crams more than twice the transistors into a substantially smaller area, a direct benefit of the 4 nm node.

The RX 9070 GRE compensates for its smaller transistor budget with higher clocks. It boosts to 2790 MHz with a base clock of 1420 MHz and a game clock of 2220 MHz. The PRO W6800 boosts to 2322 MHz with a base of 1575 MHz and no recorded game clock. Despite the lower boost, the PRO W6800's higher base clock suggests a more conservative clock curve optimized for sustained professional workloads.

Shading resources favor the PRO W6800 in raw counts. The older card has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 60 ray tracing cores. The RX 9070 GRE has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 RT cores. Both have 96 ROPs. Yet the RX 9070 GRE still manages higher pixel and texture rates in some metrics: it hits 267.8 GPixel/s versus 222.9 GPixel/s for the PRO W6800, while texture rates are nearly identical at 535.7 GTexel/s versus 557.3 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput is where the RX 9070 GRE pulls ahead decisively. It delivers 34.28 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the PRO W6800's 17.83 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 68.57 TFLOPS for the RX 9070 GRE versus 35.67 TFLOPS for the PRO W6800, both at 2:1 ratio. This is the clearest architectural advantage for the RDNA 4.0 part.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The PRO W6800 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 9070 GRE offers 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The PRO W6800's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 9070 GRE runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed—the newer card compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory.

The RX 9070 GRE connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the PRO W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the RX 9070 GRE has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1a, whereas the PRO W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the RX 9070 GRE is the faster compute card, and the PRO W6800 is the capacity card. If raw OpenCL performance is the priority, the RX 9070 GRE's 11.6 percent lead makes it the straightforward choice. Its 34.28 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is nearly double the PRO W6800's 17.83 TFLOPS, which will matter in compute-heavy tasks that scale with shader throughput.

The PRO W6800's case rests on memory. Its 32 GB capacity and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a 20 GB capacity advantage and 80 GB/s bandwidth advantage over the RX 9070 GRE. For workloads that need large datasets resident in VRAM, the PRO W6800 is the only option between these two. The RX 9070 GRE's 12 GB may be insufficient for large model inference or high-resolution texture sets.

The PRO W6800 also has the advantage of being a proven, end-of-life professional product with a documented 2,249 USD launch MSRP. The RX 9070 GRE carries no launch MSRP in the data, so its positioning is less clear. Both cards occupy the 97th percentile, meaning neither is a slouch, but their strengths are orthogonal.

For users who already know their workload fits within 12 GB of VRAM, the RX 9070 GRE is the better performer. For users who need the memory headroom or are upgrading from a professional card with similar capacity requirements, the PRO W6800 remains viable despite being end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The RX 9070 GRE uses the Navi 48 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the PRO W6800 uses Navi 21 on RDNA 2.0. Manufacturing processes differ: 4 nm versus 7 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 53,900 million versus 26,800 million, and die sizes are 357 mm² versus 520 mm².

Clock speeds favor the RX 9070 GRE with a 2790 MHz boost versus 2322 MHz, and a 1420 MHz base versus 1575 MHz. The RX 9070 GRE has a 2220 MHz game clock; the PRO W6800 has none recorded. Memory clocks also favor the newer card: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bus width favor the PRO W6800: 32 GB versus 12 GB, and 256-bit versus 192-bit. Bandwidth follows suit at 512.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s. Shader resources favor the PRO W6800 in count: 3840 shading units versus 3072, 240 TMUs versus 192, and 60 RT cores versus 48. ROPs are equal at 96.

Compute throughput favors the RX 9070 GRE: 34.28 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS FP32, and 68.57 TFLOPS versus 35.67 TFLOPS FP16. Power draw favors the RX 9070 GRE at 220 W TDP versus 250 W, with a suggested PSU of 550 W versus 600 W. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.

The PRO W6800 has recorded physical dimensions of 267 mm length, 120 mm height, and 50 mm width; the RX 9070 GRE has no dimensions listed. Both are dual-slot cards. The PRO W6800 is end-of-life, while the RX 9070 GRE is active. Release dates differ by roughly four years: the RX 9070 GRE launched May 7, 2025, and the PRO W6800 launched June 7, 2021.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9070 GRE wins in OpenCL compute, with an 11.6 percent head-to-head margin. It also wins decisively in raw FP32 and FP16 throughput, offering nearly double the TFLOPS of the PRO W6800. For tasks that are compute-bound and fit within 12 GB of memory, the RX 9070 GRE is the stronger pick.

The PRO W6800 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 32 GB frame buffer is 2.67 times larger than the RX 9070 GRE's 12 GB, and its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is 18.5 percent higher. It also has six mini-DisplayPort outputs versus four total outputs on the RX 9070 GRE, which may matter for multi-display professional setups. The PRO W6800's 267 mm length is a known quantity for case compatibility, while the RX 9070 GRE's dimensions are unlisted.

The PRO W6800's higher base clock of 1575 MHz versus 1420 MHz suggests it may sustain performance better in steady-state professional loads, though boost behavior favors the RX 9070 GRE. Its lower transistor density (51.5M per mm² versus 151.0M per mm²) indicates a more mature, less dense design that may have different thermal characteristics.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the decision hinges on memory requirements. If 12 GB suffices, the RX 9070 GRE offers better compute performance, lower power draw, and newer architecture. If the workload demands more than 12 GB, the PRO W6800 is the only choice, despite being slower per FLOP and end-of-life. The data does not suggest any scenario where the PRO W6800 wins on raw performance—its advantages are entirely in capacity and connectivity.