Radeon PRO W6400 vs Radeon R9 295X2
Radeon PRO W6400
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 295X2
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Radeon PRO W6400 is positioned at rank #33 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Great cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon PRO W6400
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon PRO W6400 is significantly newer (2022 vs 2014). The Radeon PRO W6400 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon R9 295X2 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 295X2 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (8 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon PRO W6400.
| Insight | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.6%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | 🎮 High Capacity (4 GB) | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (307mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 295X2 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $200 (vs $200), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 3.6% better value per dollar than the Radeon PRO W6400.
| Insight | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+3.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon PRO W6400 and Radeon R9 295X2
Radeon PRO W6400
The Radeon PRO W6400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 19 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2331 MHz to 2331 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,428 points.
Radeon R9 295X2
The Radeon R9 295X2 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 29 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1018 MHz. It has 2816 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 500W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 8,734 points. Launch price was $1,499.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon PRO W6400 scores 8,428 and the Radeon R9 295X2 reaches 8,734 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon PRO W6400 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the Radeon R9 295X2 uses GCN 2.0, both on 6 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 2,816 (Radeon R9 295X2). Raw compute: 3.58 TFLOPS (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 5.733 TFLOPS ×2 (Radeon R9 295X2). Boost clocks: 2331 MHz vs 1018 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 8,428 | 8,734+4% |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 2816 ×2+267% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.58 TFLOPS | 5.733 TFLOPS ×2+60% |
| Boost Clock | 2331 MHz+129% | 1018 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 ×2+100% |
| TMUs | 48 | 176 ×2+267% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 704 KB+175% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon PRO W6400 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 295X2 has 8 GB. The Radeon R9 295X2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 512-bit x2.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 512-bit x2+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.2 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 12.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.1. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 6.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.2+2% | 12.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2+9% | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+7% | 4.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 6+200% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 3.0 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs VCE 2.0 (Radeon R9 295X2). Decoder: VCN 3.0 vs UVD 4.2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (Radeon PRO W6400) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (Radeon R9 295X2).
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 3.0 | VCE 2.0 |
| Decoder | VCN 3.0 | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon PRO W6400 draws 50W versus the Radeon R9 295X2's 500W — a 163.6% difference. The Radeon PRO W6400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 500W (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 1000W (Radeon R9 295X2). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 8-pin. Card length: 168mm vs 307mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-90% | 500W |
| Recommended PSU | 500W-50% | 1000W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 2x 8-pin |
| Length | 168mm | 307mm |
| Height | 69mm | 114mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 168.6+863% | 17.5 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon PRO W6400 launched at $229 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the Radeon R9 295X2 launched at $1499 and now averages $200. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 42.1 (Radeon PRO W6400) vs 43.7 (Radeon R9 295X2) — the Radeon R9 295X2 offers 3.8% better value. The Radeon PRO W6400 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2014).
| Feature | Radeon PRO W6400 | Radeon R9 295X2 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $229-85% | $1499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 42.1 | 43.7+4% |
| Codename | Navi 24 | Vesuvius |
| Release | January 19 2022 | April 29 2014 |
| Ranking | #308 | #303 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon PRO W6400 and Radeon R9 295X2
