AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two cards compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo has an average benchmark score of 135,774, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117,088. That places the AMD card roughly 16% higher overall, though the two cards trade wins in individual tests.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation edges out the AMD card in geekbench_opencl, scoring 124,812 versus 124,335. The margin is a slim 0.4%, making this effectively a tie in compute workloads that use OpenCL.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo takes a decisive win in geekbench_vulkan, scoring 125,622 against NVIDIA's 109,364. That is a 14.9% advantage for AMD, indicating a substantial lead in Vulkan-based rendering and compute tasks.

Q: How do these cards rank among all GPUs?

A: The AMD card sits at the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card is at the 95th percentile. Both are high-end workstation parts, but the AMD card holds a slightly higher overall ranking.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: For the AMD W6800X Duo, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 with an average score of 135,396 (0.3% difference). For the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (0.3% difference).

Q: Which card has a higher memory capacity?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo features 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6. AMD also offers a wider 256-bit memory bus versus NVIDIA's 160-bit bus.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm². This is a large, power-hungry chip designed for maximum throughput in professional visualization.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation takes a different approach, using the AD104 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture on a 5 nm process. It contains 35,800 million transistors on a much smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm² — more than double the AMD card's density. This reflects NVIDIA's newer process node and more compact design.

Architecturally, the AMD card employs 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 raster output pipelines, alongside 60 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card counters with 6,144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The tensor cores give NVIDIA a distinct advantage in AI-accelerated workloads, a feature entirely absent from the AMD specification.

The memory subsystems differ markedly. AMD uses a 256-bit bus with 32 GB of GDDR6 running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA uses a narrower 160-bit bus with 20 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), producing 280.0 GB/s. The AMD card's bandwidth advantage is substantial, though the NVIDIA card's higher FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS vs 15.11 TFLOPS) suggests a different optimization focus.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The AMD card is a quad-slot solution with a 400 W TDP and requires an 800 W power supply, while the NVIDIA card is a dual-slot design with a 70 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, whereas AMD uses the Apple MPX bus interface. NVIDIA's card draws power from the slot alone, with no additional power connectors needed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results present a split decision. In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812 against AMD's 124,335. The delta is only 0.4% in NVIDIA's favor, a margin small enough to be considered negligible in real-world compute tasks. Both cards perform nearly identically in OpenCL, suggesting that raw compute throughput is comparable despite the architectural differences.

The geekbench_vulkan test tells a different story. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo scores 125,622, while the NVIDIA card manages 109,364. This 14.9% delta in AMD's favor is a meaningful gap, indicating that the RDNA 2.0 architecture provides a significant advantage in Vulkan-based workloads. The AMD card also holds a slight edge in its own Vulkan score versus its OpenCL score (125,622 vs 124,335), while the NVIDIA card shows a notable drop in Vulkan performance relative to its OpenCL result (109,364 vs 124,812).

The average benchmark scores reflect these mixed results. AMD's average of 135,774 is higher than NVIDIA's 117,088, but the gap is driven primarily by the Vulkan test, where AMD's 14.9% advantage outweighs NVIDIA's 0.4% lead in OpenCL. The percentile rankings underscore this: AMD sits at the 96th percentile and NVIDIA at the 95th, a narrow separation that aligns with the near-tie in OpenCL and the larger Vulkan gap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo uses a 7 nm process, while the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses 5 nm. Transistor counts are 26,800 million for AMD and 35,800 million for NVIDIA, with die sizes of 520 mm² and 294 mm² respectively. The resulting transistor densities are 51.5M/mm² for AMD and 121.8M/mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds show a stark contrast. AMD's base clock is 1800 MHz with a boost of 1967 MHz, while NVIDIA's base is just 720 MHz with a boost of 1560 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for AMD and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory capacity, bus width, and bandwidth all favor AMD: 32 GB versus 20 GB, 256-bit versus 160-bit, and 512.0 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s. However, NVIDIA leads in shading units (6,144 vs 3,840), tensor cores (192 vs none), and FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS vs 15.11 TFLOPS). AMD leads in TMUs (240 vs 192), ROPs (96 vs 64), pixel rate (188.8 GPixel/s vs 99.84 GPixel/s), and texture rate (472.1 GTexel/s vs 299.5 GTexel/s). FP16 performance is 30.21 TFLOPS (2:1) for AMD versus 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) for NVIDIA.

Power requirements are dramatically different: AMD's 400 W TDP and 800 W suggested PSU versus NVIDIA's 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU. Physical dimensions also differ, with AMD measuring 267 mm in length and 120 mm in height (quad-slot) against NVIDIA's 168 mm length and 69 mm height (dual-slot). The AMD card uses the Apple MPX interface, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt for AMD, and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data presents two distinct profiles for different professional environments. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo is an end-of-life product released in August 2021, with a launch MSRP of 4,999 USD. It offers superior memory capacity (32 GB vs 20 GB), significantly higher memory bandwidth (512.0 GB/s vs 280.0 GB/s), and a decisive 14.9% win in Vulkan performance. Its 96th percentile ranking among all GPUs places it slightly above NVIDIA's 95th percentile.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is an active product released in March 2023, succeeding Workstation Ampere and preceding Blackwell PRO W. It offers higher FP32 throughput (19.17 TFLOPS vs 15.11 TFLOPS), tensor cores for AI workloads, and dramatically lower power requirements (70 W vs 400 W TDP). Its near-tie in OpenCL (0.4% advantage) and compact dual-slot design make it suitable for space-constrained and power-sensitive deployments.

For users prioritizing raw memory bandwidth and Vulkan performance, the AMD card is the clear choice based on benchmark results. For those needing AI acceleration via tensor cores, lower power consumption, and a smaller physical footprint, the NVIDIA card is the data-supported option. The average benchmark scores favor AMD, but the NVIDIA card's active production status and architectural features suggest ongoing relevance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo wins in Vulkan-based workloads, where its 14.9% advantage over NVIDIA translates to faster rendering and compute in Vulkan-enabled applications. Its 32 GB memory capacity and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for large dataset processing and memory-intensive visualization tasks. The higher pixel rate (188.8 GPixel/s) and texture rate (472.1 GTexel/s) suggest advantages in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The card's 96th percentile ranking and higher average benchmark score (135,774 vs 117,088) indicate overall stronger performance in mixed workloads.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in OpenCL by a slim 0.4% margin, making it marginally better for OpenCL-based compute. Its 192 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI inference and training tasks, which the AMD card lacks entirely. The 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 throughput outpaces AMD's 15.11 TFLOPS, suggesting advantages in FP32-heavy computation. The 70 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it suitable for multi-GPU configurations and compact workstations where power and space are constrained. Its 5 nm process and higher transistor density (121.8M/mm²) indicate a more modern manufacturing approach, and the dual-slot form factor fits in standard PCIe systems without the Apple MPX requirement.