AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and AMD Radeon RX 6400 are two end-of-life GPUs that land within 1% of each other in average benchmark score, making the choice entirely about workload-specific strengths. The data shows the Radeon RX 6400 wins 6 of the 9 head-to-head benchmarks, including all DirectX 10, 11, and 12 tests, plus the OpenCL compute test. The Quadro P2000 counters with wins in Vulkan, DirectX 9, and GPU compute. For modern gaming and general DirectX workloads, the RX 6400 is the clear pick. For legacy DirectX 9 titles, Vulkan-based applications, or pure compute tasks, the P2000 holds its ground. Both cards sit at the 35th percentile of all GPUs, meaning neither is a high-end performer; they are entry-level solutions with distinct trade-offs.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the better all-rounder for anyone running DirectX 11 or 12 content. Its lead in passmark_directx_11 is substantial: a score of 70 versus the P2000's 47, a 32.9% advantage. In passmark_directx_10 the gap is similar, with the RX 6400 scoring 54 against 34, a 37% margin. These are the APIs used by the vast majority of modern PC games and productivity applications, so the RX 6400 will deliver noticeably smoother performance in those scenarios. Its passmark_g3d score of 7673 is 9.3% ahead of the P2000's 6956, confirming the overall gaming edge.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the specialist's card. Its Vulkan score of 23566 crushes the RX 6400's 16372, a 43.9% lead. For anyone running Vulkan-based titles or compute workloads that leverage that API, the P2000 is dramatically faster. It also wins passmark_gpu_compute with 2933 against 2812, a 4.3% margin, suggesting better raw compute performance for non-graphics tasks. The DirectX 9 win (124 vs 93, a 33.3% advantage) makes it the choice for retro gaming or legacy software that relies on that older API.

If you have to pick one without knowing the workload, the RX 6400's wins in the more modern APIs and its higher overall passmark_g3d score make it the safer default. But if your software stack is known to favor Vulkan or older DirectX, the P2000's specific strengths are too large to ignore.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 6049, while the AMD Radeon RX 6400 scores 6001. The P2000 leads by 0.8% according to the deltaPct data, but this is within the margin of error for most real-world differences.

Q: How do the two cards compare in DirectX 12 performance?

A: The Radeon RX 6400 wins passmark_directx_12 with a score of 30 versus the P2000's 28, a 6.7% margin. The RX 6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P2000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Is the Quadro P2000 better for compute workloads?

A: Yes, the data shows the P2000 wins passmark_gpu_compute with 2933 points against the RX 6400's 2812, a 4.3% advantage. It also has a higher FP32 rating at 3.031 TFLOPS, though the RX 6400's FP32 is higher at 3.565 TFLOPS, indicating the compute win is workload-specific rather than a raw throughput advantage.

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, providing 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The P2000 has both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, while the RX 6400 is more efficient at 53 W. Both require a suggested PSU of 250 W and use no external power connectors, so either will fit in a modest system.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18, while the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 launched on 2017-02-05. The RX 6400 is five years newer and uses a 6 nm process node versus the P2000's 16 nm.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro P2000 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture on a GP106 chip, built on a 16 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,400 million transistors onto a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 22.0M per mm². The Radeon RX 6400 uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a much smaller 107 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 50.5M per mm² — more than double the density of the Pascal chip.

The RDNA 2.0 architecture brings modern features that Pascal lacks. The RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores, which the P2000 does not have at all. This makes the RX 6400 capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature completely absent from the older Pascal design. The RX 6400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the P2000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is otherwise equal.

The shader configurations differ significantly. The P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite fewer units, the RX 6400 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s versus the P2000's 59.20 GPixel/s and 94.72 GTexel/s. This is a result of the much higher clock speeds on the RDNA 2.0 card, with a boost clock of 2321 MHz against the P2000's 1480 MHz.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is process node: the RX 6400 uses a 6 nm process versus the P2000's 16 nm, which explains the significant efficiency gains. The RX 6400 has a TDP of 53 W, which is 22 W lower than the P2000's 75 W, despite delivering higher raw performance in most tests. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The P2000 offers 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The P2000 has more memory and higher bandwidth, but the RX 6400's GDDR6 runs at 16 Gbps effective versus the P2000's 7 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds favor the RX 6400 overwhelmingly. Its base clock is 1923 MHz with a boost of 2321 MHz and a game clock of 2039 MHz. The P2000's base clock is 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly into the RX 6400's higher pixel and texture rates, as well as its higher FP32 throughput of 3.565 TFLOPS versus the P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS.

The bus interface also differs: the P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4. This could matter in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, though the practical impact depends on the workload. Display outputs differ as well, with the P2000 offering 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and the RX 6400 having only 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the AMD Radeon RX 6400 comes in geekbench_opencl, where it scores 32011 against the P2000's 20125. That is a 37.1% advantage, making it the largest single-test victory in the comparison. This is notable because it shows the RX 6400's compute capability through the OpenCL API is vastly superior, despite the P2000 winning the passmark_gpu_compute test. The two compute benchmarks tell different stories, suggesting the results are highly dependent on the specific workload.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000's largest victory is in geekbench_vulkan, where it scores 23566 versus the RX 6400's 16372, a 43.9% lead. This is the single biggest margin in either direction, and it makes the P2000 the definitive choice for Vulkan-based applications. The P2000 also wins passmark_directx_9 with 124 against 93, a 33.3% margin, and passmark_gpu_compute with 2933 against 2812, a 4.3% margin.

In the DirectX tests, the RX 6400 dominates. Passmark_directx_10 shows the RX 6400 at 54 versus 34, a 37% lead. Passmark_directx_11 shows 70 versus 47, a 32.9% lead. Passmark_directx_12 is closer, with the RX 6400 at 30 against 28, a 6.7% margin. The RX 6400 also wins passmark_g2d with 722 against 626, a 13.3% margin, and passmark_g3d with 7673 against 6956, a 9.3% margin.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins in every modern DirectX scenario. Its passmark_directx_11 and passmark_directx_12 victories make it the better card for current games and applications that use those APIs. The passmark_g3d win confirms that overall 3D graphics performance is higher, making it the default choice for general gaming. The OpenCL win is significant for anyone using GPGPU acceleration through that API, such as certain video encoding or physics simulation tools. The g2d win also suggests better 2D desktop performance, which translates to snappier UI rendering in some environments.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in Vulkan, DirectX 9, and GPU compute. The Vulkan win is massive at 43.9%, so any Vulkan-based game or application will run dramatically better on the P2000. The DirectX 9 win matters for older games and legacy enterprise software that never migrated to newer APIs. The passmark_gpu_compute win, while modest at 4.3%, indicates the P2000 handles certain compute workloads more efficiently, possibly due to its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth. For users with a specific software stack that relies on these older or specialized APIs, the P2000's advantages are decisive.