GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA L40 and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 are both end-of-life workstation-class graphics cards, but they target very different performance strata. The data shows a decisive performance gap between the two, rooted in fundamentally different architectures, memory subsystems, and compute capabilities. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and use-case implications based solely on the provided specifications and test scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear, one-sided picture. The NVIDIA L40 wins both recorded benchmark comparisons, with the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 failing to secure a single victory in the tested workloads. The most significant margin appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the L40 scores 330,926 points against the W6800’s 121,808 points. This translates to a delta of 171.7 percent, meaning the L40 delivers more than two and a half times the OpenCL performance of its AMD counterpart. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the L40 again dominates, scoring 237,295 points versus 109,961 points for the W6800, a delta of 115.8 percent. That margin, while slightly narrower than the OpenCL gap, still represents a doubling of the AMD card's raw Vulkan output.

These results align with the overall benchmark averages. The L40’s average benchmark score sits at 284,111, placing it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs. The W6800, by contrast, averages 135,396 points, which lands in the 96th percentile. The delta between their average scores is substantial, and the nearest rival data for each card reinforces the stratification. The L40’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, which scores an average of 287,237 points, a marginal 1.1 percent difference. The L40 also sits within 3.9 percent of the NVIDIA L40S (295,763 points) and ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X by 10.7 percent (317,994 points). Meanwhile, the W6800’s nearest rivals are clustered tightly around its own average score, with the NVIDIA A10M (135,230 points) and NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218 points) both within 0.1 percent, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774 points) trailing by 0.3 percent. This shows the W6800 is competing in a mid-range performance tier, while the L40 operates in a completely different, high-end class.

The individual benchmark results are consistent with the architectural data. The L40’s FP32 compute rate of 90.52 TFLOPS dwarfs the W6800’s 17.83 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly five. Similarly, the L40’s texture rate of 1,414.3 GTexel/s is more than double the W6800’s 557.3 GTexel/s. These raw throughput figures directly explain why the L40 achieves such overwhelming leads in compute-heavy API benchmarks like OpenCL and Vulkan.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA L40 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 284,111, compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W6800’s 135,396. The L40’s score places it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6800 sits in the 96th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest difference is in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA L40 scores 330,926 versus the AMD card’s 121,808, a delta of 171.7 percent in favor of the L40.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmarks provided, the NVIDIA L40 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. The data records zero wins for the AMD card.

Q: How does the NVIDIA L40 compare to its nearest rival, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation?

A: The L40 trails the RTX 6000 Ada Generation by just 1.1 percent in average benchmark score (284,111 vs. 287,237), indicating they are very closely matched in overall performance.

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

A: The NVIDIA L40 is equipped with 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The L40’s memory bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s, compared to the W6800’s 512.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA L40 has a transistor density of 125.3 million transistors per square millimeter, which is more than double the AMD card’s density of 51.5 million transistors per square millimeter, despite the L40 being built on a smaller 5 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on entirely different architectures, which explains the performance chasm. The NVIDIA L40 uses the AD102 chip based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip based on RDNA 2.0, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, resulting in a density of 51.5 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The L40 features 18,176 shading units, 568 texture mapping units, and 192 ROPs. It also includes 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores, the latter being a distinct NVIDIA feature absent from the AMD card, which has no tensor core equivalent listed. The W6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 60 RT cores. In terms of raw FP32 throughput, the L40 delivers 90.52 TFLOPS, while the W6800 offers 17.83 TFLOPS. The FP16 performance also diverges: the L40 achieves 90.52 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the W6800 hits 35.67 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning the AMD card’s FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate, a characteristic of RDNA 2.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD card runs at a higher base clock of 1575 MHz and a boost clock of 2322 MHz, compared to the L40’s 735 MHz base and 2490 MHz boost. The W6800’s higher base clock is a result of its lower transistor count and simpler design, but the L40’s massive parallel architecture more than compensates in real workloads. Memory configurations also differ significantly. The L40 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, achieving 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both cards support PCIe 4.0 x16, but the L40 requires a 700 W suggested PSU and a 16-pin connector, while the W6800 needs a 600 W PSU with a 6-pin and 8-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA L40 is the superior performer in every measured category. Its average benchmark score of 284,111 is more than double the W6800’s 135,396, and it wins both head-to-head tests by margins exceeding 100 percent. The L40’s 99th percentile ranking versus the W6800’s 96th percentile further underscores the gap. For workloads that rely on raw compute, such as OpenCL and Vulkan rendering, the L40 is the only choice if maximum performance is required. The W6800, while a capable card in its own right, is positioned in a lower tier, as evidenced by its nearest rivals (NVIDIA A10M, RTX 4000 Ada) all scoring within 0.1 percent of its average. The L40’s rivals, by contrast, are the RTX 6000 Ada Generation and the L40S, which are 1.1 percent and 3.9 percent ahead, respectively.

However, the verdict is not solely about raw speed. The AMD card draws less power (250 W vs. 300 W) and has a lower suggested PSU requirement (600 W vs. 700 W). It also offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs, compared to the L40’s four DisplayPort 1.4a connections. For systems with strict power budgets or multi-display setups, the W6800 has practical advantages. But in terms of pure compute, the L40 is in a different league. The L40’s memory capacity of 48 GB also provides a 50 percent advantage over the W6800’s 32 GB, which matters for large datasets. The data suggests that the L40 is designed for high-end server and AI workloads, while the W6800 targets professional visualization with lower power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA L40 uses a 5 nm process and has 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses a 7 nm process with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. The L40’s base clock is 735 MHz, far lower than the W6800’s 1575 MHz, but the L40’s boost clock of 2490 MHz slightly exceeds the AMD card’s 2322 MHz. Memory capacity is 48 GB for the L40 versus 32 GB for the W6800, with bus widths of 384-bit and 256-bit, respectively. Memory bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s for the L40 and 512.0 GB/s for the W6800. The L40 has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, and 192 ROPs; the W6800 has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The L40 also features 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores, while the W6800 has 60 RT cores and no tensor cores. Pixel rate is 478.1 GPixel/s for the L40 versus 222.9 GPixel/s for the W6800, and texture rate is 1,414.3 GTexel/s versus 557.3 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 90.52 TFLOPS versus 17.83 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 90.52 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1). Power consumption is 300 W versus 250 W, with the L40 requiring a 700 W PSU and the W6800 a 600 W PSU. The L40 uses a single 16-pin connector, while the W6800 uses a 6-pin and 8-pin combo. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a for the L40 and 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the W6800. The L40 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the W6800 is 267 mm long, 120 mm high, and 50 mm wide. The L40 was released on 2022-10-12, while the W6800 came out on 2021-06-07.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA L40 wins decisively in compute-intensive tasks. It is the clear choice for OpenCL workloads, where it outperforms the W6800 by 171.7 percent, and for Vulkan, where it leads by 115.8 percent. The L40’s 48 GB memory capacity and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale data processing, and its tensor cores provide a hardware advantage for AI and machine learning tasks, though no specific benchmark for that is listed. The L40’s 99th percentile ranking suggests it handles the most demanding professional workloads without compromise.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has its own strengths in the data. Its lower 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU make it more power-efficient per watt, though the L40’s higher performance may justify its 300 W draw. The W6800 offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs versus four for the L40, which benefits multi-monitor configurations. Its higher base clock of 1575 MHz may indicate better responsiveness in lightly-threaded tasks, but the data does not include such tests. The W6800’s 32 GB memory is still substantial, and its FP16 performance of 35.67 TFLOPS exceeds its FP32 rate, which could benefit certain mixed-precision workloads. For users prioritizing power consumption, display connectivity, or a lower system power requirement, the W6800 is the pragmatic pick. For everything else, the L40 dominates based on the measured results.