AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA GB10 Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA GB10

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 and NVIDIA GB10 occupy very different corners of the professional GPU landscape, despite both being aimed at demanding compute workloads. The W6800 is a mature, end-of-life workstation card built on RDNA 2.0, while the GB10 is a freshly released Blackwell 2.0 server-class part with an integrated form factor. Their average benchmark scores — 135,396 for the AMD and 117,393 for the NVIDIA — place them just one percentile apart (96th vs 95th among all GPUs), yet the data reveals they achieve that proximity through entirely different design philosophies. This analysis digs into what each card does best, where their architectures diverge, and which workloads favor which contender.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results show a clean split: each card takes one of the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 edges out the NVIDIA GB10 with a score of 121,808 versus 120,137, a 1.4% advantage. This is a narrow win, but it signals that the W6800’s RDNA 2.0 design remains competitive in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL’s cross-vendor abstraction. The GB10 fights back in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 114,648 against the W6800’s 109,961 — a more substantial 4.1% lead for NVIDIA. Vulkan’s lower-level access to hardware appears to favor the Blackwell architecture’s newer scheduling and memory hierarchy.

Beyond the shared tests, the W6800 has an additional data point: a Geekbench Metal score of 174,420. The GB10 has no Metal benchmark listed, which is consistent with its server-oriented positioning — Metal is Apple’s API, and the GB10’s single HDMI output suggests it is not designed for macOS ecosystems. The W6800’s six mini-DisplayPort outputs likewise point to a multi-display workstation role, while the GB10’s lone HDMI connector indicates a headless or single-display server deployment.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the W6800’s average score of 135,396 places it 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA A10M and RTX 4000 Ada Generation, and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO V620. The GB10’s 117,393 average sits 0.3% above the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 1.3% below the Radeon PRO W7700, and 2.6% ahead of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB. These deltas suggest the W6800 competes in a higher absolute performance tier, while the GB10 trades some raw compute for other advantages — likely memory capacity and power efficiency, which we will explore below.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational and fundamental. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. The NVIDIA GB10 uses the GB20B chip on Blackwell 2.0, also from TSMC but on a 5 nm node. The process shrink gives NVIDIA a density advantage: the GB10 packs 6144 shading units into a 382 mm² die, while the W6800 fits 3840 shading units into a larger 520 mm² die. The W6800’s transistor count is listed at 26,800 million, while the GB10’s is unknown — a notable omission that makes direct transistor-density comparisons impossible.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GB10 uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on the same 256-bit bus, but only achieves 273.2 GB/s. That is a 4x capacity advantage for NVIDIA but a 1.9x bandwidth advantage for AMD — a classic trade-off between capacity and speed. The GB10’s memory clock is listed at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective), while the W6800 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), explaining the bandwidth disparity.

Compute feature sets reflect their different lineages. The W6800 has 60 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, while the GB10 has 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores — the latter being a massive differentiator for AI and machine learning workloads. The W6800’s FP32 throughput is 17.83 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). The GB10’s FP32 is 29.71 TFLOPS, and its FP16 is also 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This means the NVIDIA card does not gain a performance boost from FP16 operations, whereas the AMD card doubles its throughput — but the GB10’s raw FP32 is still 66.7% higher than the W6800’s FP32.

The GB10’s API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which is unusual and suggests a compute-focused driver stack rather than a graphics-oriented one. The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 — yet it still wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that API availability does not always correlate with real-world compute performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks tell a nuanced story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6800 scores 121,808 against the GB10’s 120,137, a 1.4% delta. This is a slim margin, but it is consistent with the W6800’s higher memory bandwidth — OpenCL workloads often scale with bandwidth, and the AMD card’s 512.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s gives it a theoretical 87% bandwidth advantage. The fact that the real-world score difference is only 1.4% suggests the GB10’s compute units are more efficient per byte of memory moved.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The GB10 scores 114,648 against the W6800’s 109,961, a 4.1% lead for NVIDIA. Vulkan’s explicit control over queues and descriptors may better utilize the GB10’s higher shading unit count (6144 versus 3840) and faster boost clock (2418 MHz versus 2322 MHz). The GB10 also has a higher base clock (1665 MHz versus 1575 MHz), which could help in sustained workloads where boost clocks are not always maintained.

The win distribution is even: one win each. But the magnitudes differ — NVIDIA’s Vulkan win (4.1%) is nearly three times larger than AMD’s OpenCL win (1.4%). This asymmetry hints that the GB10 might be the better performer in Vulkan-heavy applications, while the W6800’s OpenCL advantage is too small to be decisive. The W6800’s Metal score of 174,420 is its strongest benchmark result, but without a GB10 comparison, it cannot be interpreted relative to this head-to-head.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The W6800 has a 7 nm process node versus the GB10’s 5 nm. The W6800’s die is 520 mm² versus 382 mm² for the GB10. Base clocks are 1575 MHz versus 1665 MHz, boost clocks 2322 MHz versus 2418 MHz — NVIDIA leads both. Memory size is 32 GB versus 128 GB, but type differs (GDDR6 versus LPDDR5X) and bandwidth favors AMD (512.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s).

Shading units: 3840 versus 6144. TMUs: 240 versus 384. ROPs: 96 versus 48 — the W6800 has twice the ROPs, which explains its higher pixel rate of 222.9 GPixel/s versus 116.1 GPixel/s. RT cores: 60 versus 48. Tensor cores: none versus 384. FP32: 17.83 TFLOPS versus 29.71 TFLOPS. FP16: 35.67 TFLOPS versus 29.71 TFLOPS. Texture rate: 557.3 GTexel/s versus 928.5 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design are starkly different. The W6800 has a 250 W TDP with a dual-slot cooler, 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The GB10 has a 140 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, and requires only a 300 W PSU. The W6800 is 267 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 50 mm wide. The GB10 is 150 mm long, 51 mm tall, and 150 mm wide — a smaller footprint but oddly square. Display outputs: 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus 1x HDMI. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 5.0 x16.

The W6800 was released on 2021-06-07 and is end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD. The GB10 was released on 2025-10-14 and remains active, with a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD. The W6800’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega; the GB10’s predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800, with 512.0 GB/s versus the NVIDIA GB10’s 273.2 GB/s.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GB10 support tensor operations?

A: Yes, it has 384 tensor cores. The AMD W6800 has no tensor cores listed.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 has a 140 W TDP versus the AMD W6800’s 250 W, and it requires no external power connectors.

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL?

A: The W6800 wins with 121,808 versus 120,137, a 1.4% advantage.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD W6800 has 60 RT cores, while the NVIDIA GB10 has 48.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GB10 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X, while the W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 — a 4x capacity advantage for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the graphics-oriented workstation card, while the NVIDIA GB10 is a compute-oriented server part. For users needing multi-display output, high memory bandwidth, and strong OpenCL performance, the W6800’s 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it the logical choice — its OpenCL win, though narrow, is backed by double the ROPs and a 222.9 GPixel/s pixel rate. For users prioritizing raw FP32 compute (29.71 TFLOPS), massive memory capacity (128 GB), and AI acceleration via 384 tensor cores, the GB10 dominates — its 66.7% higher FP32 throughput and 4x memory capacity are decisive for large model inference or data-heavy server workloads.

The GB10’s Vulkan win is more convincing than the W6800’s OpenCL win, and its newer 5 nm process, higher clocks, and PCIe 5.0 interface suggest better forward compatibility. The W6800’s end-of-life status and 2,249 USD launch MSRP contrast with the GB10’s active production and 3,999 USD launch MSRP — the NVIDIA card commands a premium for its newer architecture and server features. Ultimately, the choice hinges on workload: graphics and display-centric tasks favor the W6800; compute, AI, and capacity-centric tasks favor the GB10. The benchmarks show a tie in wins, but the underlying specifications suggest the GB10 is the more future-proof investment for server deployments, while the W6800 remains a capable workstation solution for its intended niche.