AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

NVIDIA L4 and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 are both professional-grade GPUs that sit in the 97th percentile of all tested graphics cards, yet they approach workstation workloads from fundamentally different angles. The NVIDIA L4 is a power-sipping, single-slot server accelerator built on TSMC's 5 nm process, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is a dual-slot, end-of-life workstation card on 7 nm with double the memory capacity. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy in compute tasks, but the specification sheets tell a more nuanced story about which card fits which environment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisive in favor of the NVIDIA L4, though the margin varies significantly by workload type. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the L4 scores 140,838 against the W6800's 120,399, a 17% advantage. This is the largest delta between the two cards across any shared benchmark, and it reflects fundamental architectural strengths in raw compute throughput that favor the Ada Lovelace design.

The Vulkan results tighten considerably. NVIDIA L4 posts 116,491 while AMD Radeon PRO W6800 reaches 109,228, giving the L4 a 6.6% lead. The narrower gap in Vulkan suggests that the W6800's RDNA 2 architecture holds up better in graphics-oriented API workloads than in pure compute, even though it still trails in absolute terms. Interestingly, the L4's OpenCL score is substantially higher than its Vulkan score (140,838 vs 116,491), while the W6800's two scores are much closer together (120,399 vs 109,228). This divergence hints that the NVIDIA card's compute scheduling is more optimized for OpenCL's execution model.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the NVIDIA L4's average benchmark score of 128,665 places it 3.7% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W6800's 133,588 average. However, this aggregate figure is skewed by the W6800's additional Metal benchmark result (171,137), which the L4 does not have. When comparing only the shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the L4 wins both outright. The nearest rival data shows the L4 is 2.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (131,911) and 4.3% behind the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (134,417), while sitting 4.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (123,434). The W6800, meanwhile, is 0.6% behind the RX 9070 GRE, 1.2% behind both the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218) and NVIDIA A10M (135,230), and 1.3% ahead of the RTX 3090 Ti.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 holds the higher average at 133,588, compared to the NVIDIA L4's 128,665. However, this includes the W6800's Metal benchmark result of 171,137, which the L4 does not have; in the two shared tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), the L4 wins both.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA L4 in OpenCL compute?

A: The L4 scores 140,838 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17% higher than the W6800's 120,399. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards across all shared benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark advantage?

A: The W6800 has a Metal benchmark score of 171,137, which is its strongest result and contributes to its higher average. However, the NVIDIA L4 does not have a Metal benchmark result, so this is not a direct head-to-head comparison.

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

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 features 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA L4 and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 are listed at the 97th percentile versus all GPUs, indicating they are positioned at nearly the same tier of overall performance.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The NVIDIA L4 has a thermal design power of 72 W, which is dramatically lower than the AMD Radeon PRO W6800's 250 W. The L4 requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, whereas the W6800 needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark and explains their divergent performance characteristics. The NVIDIA L4 is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture with the AD104 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. This chip packs 35,800 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 21 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, housing 26,800 million transistors on a much larger 520 mm² die, resulting in just 51.5M transistors per mm². The L4's more advanced node allows over twice the transistor density, which is the primary driver of its efficiency advantage.

The compute core configurations could hardly be more different. The NVIDIA L4 fields 7,424 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, backed by 60 RT cores and 240 tensor cores. The AMD W6800 counters with just 3,840 shading units but 240 TMUs and 96 ROPs, also with 60 RT cores but no tensor cores at all. This explains the FP32 compute discrepancy: the L4 delivers 30.29 TFLOPS versus the W6800's 17.83 TFLOPS. However, the W6800's FP16 throughput of 35.67 TFLOPS (at 2:1 ratio) actually exceeds the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS FP16 (at 1:1 ratio), suggesting AMD's card has a dedicated advantage in half-precision workloads.

Clock speeds and power delivery tell an efficiency story. The AMD card runs at a 1,575 MHz base and 2,322 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA L4 operates at just 795 MHz base and 2,040 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the L4 achieves higher FP32 performance through sheer core count, all within a 72 W thermal envelope. The W6800's 250 W TDP is over three times higher, yet it still trails in most compute metrics. The L4 also features a much smaller physical footprint: 169 mm length and 56 mm height versus the W6800's 267 mm length, 120 mm height, and 50 mm width. The L4 is single-slot with no display outputs, while the W6800 is dual-slot with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every measurable specification. Memory is a major differentiator: the W6800 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the L4 provides 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus at 300.1 GB/s. The AMD card has 33% more memory capacity and 71% more bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Memory clocks also differ, with the L4 running at 1,563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) versus the W6800's 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Shading resources favor NVIDIA heavily: 7,424 vs 3,840 shading units, though both have 240 TMUs. The ROP count favors AMD at 96 versus 80. RT core counts are equal at 60 each, but only the L4 has tensor cores (240 of them), which is critical for AI and machine learning workloads. Pixel and texture rates favor the AMD card: 222.9 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s, and 557.3 GTexel/s vs 489.6 GTexel/s, respectively.

Power and physical specifications are polar opposites. The L4 draws 72 W with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the W6800 draws 250 W with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The L4 is single-slot with no display outputs, while the W6800 is dual-slot with 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Release dates are 2023-03-20 for the L4 and 2021-06-07 for the W6800, and the production statuses are Active versus End-of-life. The W6800 has a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD. Both share PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces and identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the NVIDIA L4 is the superior compute performer in shared workloads, winning both head-to-head tests with 17% and 6.6% margins. Its 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 output, achieved at just 72 W, represents a generational leap in efficiency that the 250 W W6800 cannot match. For environments where raw compute density per watt is paramount—such as dense server racks or power-constrained data centers—the L4 is the clear choice based on the data.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 retains relevance through its 32 GB memory capacity and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, which are both significantly higher than the L4's 24 GB and 300.1 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound—large model inference, high-resolution rendering, or multi-display visualization—the W6800's memory subsystem provides a tangible advantage. Its 96 ROPs and higher pixel/texture rates also suggest better traditional rasterization performance, even if the shared benchmarks don't reflect that directly. The W6800's end-of-life status and 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs position it as a legacy workstation solution, while the L4's active production status and server-oriented design point toward ongoing deployment in modern AI infrastructure.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L4 wins decisively in compute-heavy, efficiency-critical scenarios. Its 17% OpenCL lead and 6.6% Vulkan lead over the W6800, combined with a 72 W power draw that requires no external connectors, make it ideal for high-density server deployments where power and space are at a premium. The presence of 240 tensor cores gives the L4 a capability the W6800 simply lacks entirely, making it the only choice for AI inference and training workloads that leverage Tensor Core acceleration. Its 5 nm process and 121.8M/mm² transistor density represent the future of GPU design, delivering 30.29 TFLOPS FP32 in a 169 mm single-slot package.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors. Its 32 GB frame buffer is 33% larger than the L4's 24 GB, and its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is 71% higher, which directly benefits large dataset processing, complex 3D scenes, and multi-app workflows. The W6800's 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it suited for multi-monitor professional setups, a feature the L4 completely lacks. Its higher pixel rate (222.9 vs 163.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (557.3 vs 489.6 GTexel/s) indicate better performance in fill-rate-bound graphics tasks. For half-precision work, the W6800's 35.67 TFLOPS FP16 output exceeds the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS, offering an advantage in specific scientific and media workloads. The W6800 also carries a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD, which is the only pricing data available for either card.