AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 are both workstation GPUs that land in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the benchmark database, yet they approach the task from very different design philosophies. The RTX 4000 Ada is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with an AD104 chip, while the PRO W6800 uses the larger Navi 21 die on 7 nm. Their average benchmark scores are close—135,218 for the NVIDIA card and 133,588 for the AMD card, a 1.2% gap in NVIDIA's favor per the nearest-rival delta. However, the head-to-head results reveal a more decisive story in shared compute tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmark tests where both cards have comparable results are Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. In OpenCL, the RTX 4000 Ada scores 146,593 against the PRO W6800's 120,399, a 21.8% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a substantial lead in a general-purpose compute workload, suggesting the Ada card's higher FP32 throughput (26.73 TFLOPS vs. 17.83 TFLOPS) and tensor core count (192 vs. none) translate directly into performance. The Vulkan test shows a narrower but still clear win: 123,842 for NVIDIA versus 109,228 for AMD, a 13.4% delta. While the PRO W6800 also lists a Geekbench Metal score of 171,137, no NVIDIA Metal result exists for comparison, so that data point stands alone.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar but muted story. The RTX 4000 Ada's average of 135,218 is 1.2% higher than the PRO W6800's 133,588, according to the nearest-rival delta percentages. That small gap on average masks the fact that in the two directly comparable tests, NVIDIA wins by double-digit margins. The PRO W6800 does not win any of the head-to-head tests—the win count stands at 2 for NVIDIA, 0 for AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 ships with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada has 20 GB. The AMD card also uses a wider 256-bit bus (vs. 160-bit) and achieves 512.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 360.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card draws less power and fits in a smaller chassis?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada has a 130 W TDP and is a single-slot card, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The PRO W6800 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W PSU. The NVIDIA card is also shorter (245 mm vs. 267 mm) and lower (112 mm vs. 120 mm).

Q: Does the AMD card have tensor cores?

A: No. The RTX 4000 Ada lists 192 tensor cores, while the PRO W6800 has no tensor core field. This gives NVIDIA a hardware advantage for AI and machine learning workloads that leverage tensor operations.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800's launch MSRP is 2,249 USD.

Q: Which card is still in active production?

A: The RTX 4000 Ada is listed as "Active," while the PRO W6800 is "End-of-life." The NVIDIA card also has a successor (Blackwell PRO W), whereas the AMD card has no successor listed.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation is the stronger performer in compute-oriented workloads. It wins both OpenCL and Vulkan tests by margins of 21.8% and 13.4% respectively, and its average score is 1.2% higher. It also offers superior power efficiency (130 W vs. 250 W TDP), a smaller single-slot footprint, and the only tensor cores in the comparison. For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, FP32 performance (26.73 TFLOPS vs. 17.83 TFLOPS), or who need to fit a workstation GPU into a compact system, the Ada card is the clear choice.

The AMD PRO W6800, however, retains significant advantages in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 32 GB VRAM and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the NVIDIA card's 20 GB and 360.0 GB/s, making it better suited for very large datasets or high-resolution textures that exceed 20 GB. It also has higher pixel and texture rates (222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s vs. 139.2 and 417.6), a higher boost clock (2322 MHz vs. 2175 MHz), and more RT cores (60 vs. 48). Its FP16 throughput of 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) exceeds the NVIDIA card's 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1). The AMD card also offers six mini-DisplayPort outputs versus four DisplayPort 1.4a on the NVIDIA side. That said, the AMD card is end-of-life, and its higher power draw and dual-slot design limit its appeal in new builds. For most compute-driven tasks, the data points to the RTX 4000 Ada; for memory-bound applications that can use more than 20 GB, the PRO W6800 remains a viable, albeit older, option.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 |

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

| Process node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 26,800 million |

| Die size | 294 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor density | 121.8M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1500 MHz | 1575 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2175 MHz | 2322 MHz |

| Memory size | 20 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory bus width | 160 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 360.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 6144 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 192 | 240 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT cores | 48 | 60 |

| Tensor cores | 192 | — |

| Pixel rate | 139.2 GPixel/s | 222.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 417.6 GTexel/s | 557.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 26.73 TFLOPS | 17.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 26.73 TFLOPS (1:1) | 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 250 W |

| Slot width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Display outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 245 mm | 267 mm |

| Height | 112 mm | 120 mm |

| Width | — | 50 mm |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2023-08-08 | 2021-06-07 |

| Predecessor | Workstation Ampere | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Successor | Blackwell PRO W | — |

| Launch MSRP | — | 2,249 USD |

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations. The RTX 4000 Ada uses the Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm TSMC node, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die—a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The PRO W6800 is based on RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm process, with 26,800 million transistors spread over a much larger 520 mm² die, yielding a density of only 51.5M per mm². This density gap explains why the NVIDIA card achieves higher FP32 throughput (26.73 TFLOPS) despite having fewer shading units? Actually it has more shading units (6144 vs. 3840) and a lower boost clock, but the architecture is more efficient per clock.

A key architectural difference is the presence of tensor cores on the NVIDIA card (192) and their complete absence on the AMD card. This gives NVIDIA a hardware path for AI and deep learning tasks. The FP16 execution ratio also differs: NVIDIA provides 26.73 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1), while AMD's FP16 is 2:1