Radeon Pro W6400 vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with Radeon Pro W6400, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6400 outperforms 980 Mobile by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 323 | 321 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.43 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.67 | 31.26 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (11 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 111.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | 3.58 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 8 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 99
−1%
| 100−110 |
| 4K | 46
+2.2%
| 45−50 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.00 | no data |
| 4K | 8.60 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 55−60
+1.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2.7%
|
110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 55−60
+1.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2.7%
|
110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
65−70 |
| Fortnite | 100−110
+5%
|
100−105 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1.3%
|
80−85 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+2.7%
|
75−80 |
| Valorant | 140−150
+5%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 55−60
+1.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2.7%
|
110−120 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240 | 240−250
+1.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+1.8%
|
110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
65−70 |
| Far Cry 6 | 55−60
+1.8%
|
55−60 |
| Fortnite | 100−110
+5%
|
100−105 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1.3%
|
80−85 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84 | 85−90
+1.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+2.7%
|
75−80 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84 | 85−90
+1.2%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+5%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+7.5%
|
40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+1.8%
|
110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
65−70 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1.3%
|
80−85 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+2.7%
|
75−80 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+10%
|
40−45 |
| Valorant | 140−150
+5%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+5%
|
100−105 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40−45 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+3.6%
|
140−150 |
| Far Cry 6 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1.2%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+3.6%
|
55−60 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2%
|
50−55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4.4%
|
45−50 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Far Cry 6 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60 | 60−65 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30 | 30−33 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+7%
|
100−105 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70 | 70−75
+1.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 21−24 |
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and Pro W6400 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6400 is 1% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 2% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.69 | 20.06 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 19 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
Pro W6400 has a 2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 79% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 980 Mobile and Radeon Pro W6400.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6400 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
