AMD Instinct MI100 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one directly comparable benchmark between these two accelerators: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Instinct MI100 posts a score of 139035, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 reaches 81528. That gives the MI100 a decisive 70.5% advantage in this compute-oriented test. The margin is substantial, and it reflects the fundamental purpose of each product.

Looked at against their own peer groups, the two cards occupy different tiers. The MI100 sits at the 96th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 139035. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB, scores 138063, which is 0.7% behind. The Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB trails by 0.9% at 137731, and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 comes in 1.9% lower at 136472. Even the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo, at 135774, is only 2.4% behind. The MI100 leads this pack convincingly, but the gaps are narrow at the top, suggesting it competes in a very high-performance segment.

The W7600, by contrast, sits at the 93rd percentile, with an average score of 87108 across its two recorded benchmarks (81528 in OpenCL and 92688 in Vulkan). Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, scores 87445, a mere 0.4% above the W7600. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX is 1.7% behind at 85637. However, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile and RTX A4500 are 4.4% and 5.0% ahead, scoring 91134 and 91671 respectively. The W7600 is competitive in its class, but it does not dominate its rivals the way the MI100 does.

The head-to-head OpenCL result shows a single winner, the MI100, with one win and zero for the W7600. That is the only direct comparison available, so the overall picture rests heavily on that one metric. Still, the magnitude of the delta, 70.5%, is large enough to define the relationship between the two products clearly.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators come from different architectural lineages within AMD. The MI100 uses the Arcturus chip built on CDNA 1.0, an architecture explicitly designed for compute workloads. The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0, which is a graphics-first architecture with additional features for rendering.

The process nodes differ. The MI100 is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the W7600 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI100 packs 25,600 million transistors onto a 750 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 34.1 million per square millimeter. The W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, for a much higher density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser chip is a hallmark of a newer process generation.

Compute resources tell the story of intent. The MI100 has 7680 shading units, 480 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI100 has more than three times the shading units and nearly four times the texture units. However, the W7600 includes 32 ray tracing cores, which the MI100 lacks entirely. The MI100 also has no dedicated tensor cores, and neither card lists tensor core counts in the database.

Clock speeds favor the W7600. Its base clock is 1720 MHz and its boost clock is 2440 MHz. The MI100 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1502 MHz boost. The W7600's higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer compute units, but not enough to close the gap in raw throughput. The MI100 delivers 23.07 TFLOPS of FP32 and 46.14 TFLOPS of FP16 (at 2:1 ratio). The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 39.98 TFLOPS FP16. The MI100 leads in both precision levels, though by a smaller margin than the shading unit count might suggest.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The MI100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, yielding 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 288.0 GB/s. That is a 4.27x difference in bandwidth and a 4x difference in capacity, directly impacting memory-bound workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The MI100 wins in raw compute performance, as measured by the OpenCL benchmark, and by extension in any workload that scales with shading units, memory bandwidth, or FP32/FP16 throughput. Its 70.5% lead in the head-to-head OpenCL test is the clearest signal. For large matrix operations, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference and training, the MI100's 32 GB of HBM2 and 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth provide a massive advantage. The data suggests it is built for sustained, high-intensity compute.

The W7600 wins in areas that the MI100 cannot compete in because the MI100 has no support for them. The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI100 lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan, which means it has no graphics output capability at all. The MI100 has no display outputs, whereas the W7600 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections. For any rendering workload, ray tracing, or interactive graphics, the W7600 is the only viable choice between the two.

The W7600 also wins on efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP is 130 W versus 300 W for the MI100, and it requires a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, compared to the MI100's dual 8-pin connectors and 700 W suggested PSU. The W7600 is a single-slot card, while the MI100 is dual-slot. The W7600 is also shorter at 241 mm versus 267 mm, though it is slightly taller at 115 mm versus 111 mm.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two differ are extensive and defining.

• Chip and architecture: Arcturus on CDNA 1.0 for the MI100; Navi 33 on RDNA 3.0 for the W7600.
• Process node: 7 nm for the MI100; 6 nm for the W7600.
• Transistors: 25,600 million for the MI100; 13,300 million for the W7600.
• Die size: 750 mm² for the MI100; 204 mm² for the W7600.
• Transistor density: 34.1M per mm² for the MI100; 65.2M per mm² for the W7600.
• Base clock: 1000 MHz for the MI100; 1720 MHz for the W7600.
• Boost clock: 1502 MHz for the MI100; 2440 MHz for the W7600.
• Memory size: 32 GB for the MI100; 8 GB for the W7600.
• Memory type: HBM2 for the MI100; GDDR6 for the W7600.
• Memory bus width: 4096-bit for the MI100; 128-bit for the W7600.
• Memory bandwidth: 1.23 TB/s for the MI100; 288.0 GB/s for the W7600.
• Shading units: 7680 for the MI100; 2048 for the W7600.
• TMUs: 480 for the MI100; 128 for the W7600.
• ROPs: 64 for both, no difference.
• Ray tracing cores: none for the MI100; 32 for the W7600.
• Pixel rate: 96.13 GPixel/s for the MI100; 156.2 GPixel/s for the W7600.
• Texture rate: 721.0 GTexel/s for the MI100; 312.3 GTexel/s for the W7600.
• FP32: 23.07 TFLOPS for the MI100; 19.99 TFLOPS for the W7600.
• FP16: 46.14 TFLOPS for the MI100; 39.98 TFLOPS for the W7600.
• TDP: 300 W for the MI100; 130 W for the W7600.
• Slot width: dual-slot for the MI100; single-slot for the W7600.
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin for the MI100; 1x 6-pin for the W7600.
• Suggested PSU: 700 W for the MI100; 300 W for the W7600.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the MI100; PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7600.
• Display outputs: none for the MI100; 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7600.
• DirectX support: N/A for the MI100; 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the W7600.
• OpenGL support: N/A for the MI100; 4.6 for the W7600.
• Vulkan support: N/A for the MI100; 1.4 for the W7600.
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 111 mm height for the MI100; 241 mm length, 115 mm height for the W7600.
• Production status: end-of-life for the MI100; active for the W7600.
• Release date: 2020-11-15 for the MI100; 2023-08-02 for the W7600.
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct for the MI100; Radeon Pro Vega for the W7600.
• Launch MSRP: none recorded for the MI100; 599 USD for the W7600.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Instinct MI100 scores 139035, which is 70.5% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7600's 81528 in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card offer?

A: The MI100 provides 1.23 TB/s from 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus. The W7600 provides 288.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the W7600 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the W7600 has 32 ray tracing cores. The MI100 has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: Can the MI100 output video to displays?

A: No, the MI100 has no display outputs and lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI100 has a 300 W TDP, requires 2x 8-pin power connectors, and a 700 W suggested PSU. The W7600 has a 130 W TDP, requires 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card is smaller physically?

A: The W7600 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The MI100 is dual-slot, measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Instinct MI100 is the choice for pure compute performance. Its 70.5% OpenCL lead over the W7600, combined with 32 GB of HBM2 memory, 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth, and higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, makes it the stronger accelerator for any workload that does not require graphics output. It also ranks higher overall, at the 96th percentile versus the W7600's 93rd, and it beats its nearest rivals by margins of 0.7% to 2.4%.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the choice for any task that needs rendering, display output, or modern graphics APIs. It has 32 ray tracing cores, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and full support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI100 has none of these features. The W7600 also demands far less power at 130 W versus 300 W, uses a single slot, and has a smaller footprint.

For a workstation that must drive monitors, run interactive applications, or handle ray-traced scenes, the W7600 is the only functional option. For headless compute nodes, batch processing, or scientific workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth dominate, the MI100 is the superior part. The production status reinforces this: the MI100 is end-of-life, while the W7600 is active. New buyers needing graphics should pick the W7600; those with legacy compute pipelines that can tolerate an end-of-life product will find the MI100's performance lead still holds up.