AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 and NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation represent two very different approaches to workstation graphics, and the benchmark data shows they land surprisingly close in raw compute despite their architectural chasm. The Radeon PRO W6800 is an end-of-life, dual-slot monster from the RDNA 2.0 era, while the RTX 4000 SFF is an active, compact Ada Lovelace card that sips power. Their average benchmark scores differ by only about 15%, yet their physical and power profiles could not be more extreme. This comparison walks through the numbers to clarify which card fits which build.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provides only two direct comparisons, and they split the wins evenly. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6800’s 121,808. That is a 2.4% margin in NVIDIA’s favor, with the deltaPct showing the AMD card trailing. In Geekbench Vulkan, the situation flips: the Radeon PRO W6800 scores 109,961 versus 109,364 for the RTX 4000 SFF, a razor-thin 0.5% win for AMD. Neither card dominates the other in these two tests; the differences are within noise for most real workloads.

Looking at broader averages, the picture gets more interesting. The Radeon PRO W6800’s average benchmark score is 135,396, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (non-SFF) at 135,218, a mere 0.1% difference. The RTX 4000 SFF, by contrast, averages 117,088 across its two recorded benchmarks, sitting in the 95th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393, which is 0.3% ahead, and it trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6%.

The gap between the two cards in average score is substantial: 135,396 versus 117,088 is roughly a 15.6% advantage for the W6800. However, the RTX 4000 SFF’s nearest rivals include the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (2.4% behind) and RTX A5500 Mobile (2.8% behind), showing it punches well above its 70 W envelope. The W6800’s rivals include the W6800X Duo (0.3% ahead) and PRO V620 (0.8% ahead), indicating it sits at the top of its immediate performance class. In short, the W6800 wins on sheer compute headroom, but the RTX 4000 SFF is remarkably close per watt.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation leads in FP32 with 19.17 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 delivers 17.83 TFLOPS. Despite this, the W6800’s average benchmark score is higher, suggesting real-world APIs do not always scale with raw FP32.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6800 has 60% more memory capacity and 83% more bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Radeon PRO W6800 has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. The RTX 4000 SFF has a 70 W TDP, needs only a 250 W suggested PSU, and requires no power connectors at all.

Q: Which card is smaller physically?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF is dramatically smaller. It measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, versus the W6800’s 267 mm length and 120 mm height. The RTX 4000 SFF is about 37% shorter and 43% lower profile.

Q: Do they support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both cards list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in API support according to the data, despite their different architectures.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF has 6,144 shading units, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has 3,840. NVIDIA also fields 192 tensor cores and 48 RT cores, versus AMD’s 60 RT cores and no tensor core count listed.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different silicon generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip on Ada Lovelace, built on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It crams 35,800 million transistors into a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving 121.8M transistors per mm²—more than double the density of the AMD part.

Clock speeds tell a story of brute force versus efficiency. The W6800 runs at a 1575 MHz base and 2322 MHz boost, while the RTX 4000 SFF is far more conservative at 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. Yet the NVIDIA card still achieves higher FP32 due to its wider shader array. The memory clocks also diverge: the W6800 uses 2000 MHz memory (16 Gbps effective), while the RTX 4000 SFF uses 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The W6800’s wider 256-bit bus compensates for the lower per-pin speed, giving it 512.0 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s.

Feature sets differ in key ways. The RTX 4000 SFF includes 192 tensor cores, which the W6800 lacks entirely, and has 48 RT cores versus AMD’s 60. The W6800 has more TMUs (240 versus 192) and ROPs (96 versus 64), which explains its higher pixel rate of 222.9 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 557.3 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s. The FP16 situation is also telling: the W6800 delivers 35.67 TFLOPS at 2:1 rate, while the RTX 4000 SFF delivers 19.17 TFLOPS at 1:1, meaning it does not boost half-precision work.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every physical and electrical specification. The Radeon PRO W6800 is 267 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 50 mm wide, while the RTX 4000 SFF is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall with no width listed. Both are dual-slot, but the W6800 requires external power (1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin) while the RTX 4000 SFF draws everything from the PCIe slot. The W6800’s TDP is 250 W with a 600 W suggested PSU; the RTX 4000 SFF is 70 W with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Memory is another clear differentiator. The W6800 offers 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4000 SFF offers 20 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth. Display outputs are also unequal: the W6800 has six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the RTX 4000 SFF has four. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16. The W6800 launched on 2021-06-07 with a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD; the RTX 4000 SFF launched on 2023-03-20 with no MSRP listed. Production status differs: the W6800 is end-of-life, while the RTX 4000 SFF is active with a successor (Blackwell PRO W) already named.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct buyer profiles. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the choice for compute-heavy, memory-hungry workloads where 32 GB of VRAM and 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth matter more than power efficiency. Its average benchmark score of 135,396 puts it in the 96th percentile, and it beats the RTX 4000 SFF by roughly 15.6% in aggregate. It wins the Vulkan head-to-head and offers double the memory capacity and nearly double the bandwidth. The trade-offs are severe: a 250 W TDP, a 267 mm length, and an end-of-life status with no successor listed.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the efficiency king. At 70 W with no power connectors, it fits in SFF builds where the W6800 physically cannot. Its FP32 output (19.17 TFLOPS) actually exceeds the W6800’s, and it wins the OpenCL head-to-head by 2.4%. Its 20 GB memory is ample for many tasks, and its 95th percentile standing is impressive given its power draw. However, its 117,088 average score is clearly lower, and it trails the W6800 in memory bandwidth by a wide margin. For users who need maximum compute in a tiny chassis, the RTX 4000 SFF is the only logical pick.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in scenarios that demand raw memory throughput and capacity. With 32 GB of VRAM and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, it is better suited for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-GPU rendering pools where the extra 12 GB prevents out-of-memory failures. Its 222.9 GPixel/s pixel rate and 557.3 GTexel/s texture rate suggest stronger fill-rate-bound work, and its Vulkan win (109,961 versus 109,364) indicates it handles that API slightly better. The 96th percentile ranking and 135,396 average score make it the higher-performing card overall.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF wins in power-constrained and space-constrained environments. Its 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU mean it can run in systems where the W6800’s 600 W requirement is impossible. Its 168 mm length fits in cases that cannot accommodate 267 mm cards. The 192 tensor cores give it a feature the W6800 lacks entirely, which is relevant for any accelerated AI or DLSS-type workload. Its OpenCL win (124,812 versus 121,808) shows it handles that API better, and its 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 outpaces the W6800 despite the lower clocks. For SFF workstations or multi-GPU arrays where power and heat are the limiting factors, the RTX 4000 SFF is the clear winner.